The GOLD V Thematic Report on Metropolitan Areas by UCLG CGLU

2019

The Localization of the Global Agendas How local action is transforming territories and communities

Metropolitan Areas

© 2020 UCLG The right of UCLG to be identified as author of the editorial material, and of the individual authors as authors of their contributions, has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. United Cities and Local Governments Cités et Gouvernements Locaux Unis Ciudades y Gobiernos Locales Unidos Avinyó 15 08002 Barcelona www.uclg.org

DISCLAIMERS The terms used concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its economic system or degree of development do not necessarily reflect the opinion of United Cities and Local Governments. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of all the members of United Cities and Local Governments.

This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of UCLG and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

This document has been financed by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Sida. Sida does not necessarily share the views expressed in this material. Responsibility for its content rests entirely with the author.

Graphic design and lay-out: www.ggrafic.com Cover photos: Xiaojun Deng (bit.ly/2M26fCD), © Ainara Fernández Tortosa, Christopher Rose (bit.ly/2Mus3Gi), William Murphy (t.ly/0X6jX), formatbrain, (bit.ly/2AWQart), AlejandroVN (bit. ly/2M4hk6e), lawrence’s lenses (bit.ly/2AZkodB) and Denys Nevozhai (t.ly/2W0Ad). All pictures published under Creative Commons licence. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/). Some rights reserved.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

The Localization of the Global Agendas How local action is transforming territories and communities

The GOLD V Thematic Report on Metropolitan Areas

Edited by UCLG and Metropolis

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

Content

00 01 02

Preliminary remarks Editorial board Credits Abbreviations and acronyms Foreword Background: Why SDG localization?

Introduction: the Metropolitan Areas Page 15

The metropolitan context and the SDGs Page 18

2.1 Metropolitan governance 2.2 Institutional arrangements to foster the implementation of the SDGs 2.3 Metropolitan areas and the Voluntary National Reports

Metropolitan actions for the implementation of the SDGs Page 26

3.1 Metropolitan contributions to the achievement of the SDGs 3.2 Addressing the main metropolitan challenges in line with the 2030 Agenda

04 05 06 4

Conclusions and policy recommendations: the state of SDG localization in the Metropolitan Areas Page 42

Policy recommendations at the global level Page 46

Notes Page 54

Bibliography Page 58

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Editorial board Coordination Edgardo Bilsky Luc Aldon Anna Calvete Andrea Ciambra Ainara Fernández Jolie Guzmán Emilie Huet Mathilde Penard

Policy advisory Emilia Saiz, Secretary-General, UCLG UCLG Executive Bureau, 2016-2019

Secretary-Generals of UCLG sections ·· Africa: Jean-Pierre Elong Mbassi, UCLG Africa ·· Asia-Pacific: Bernadia Tjandradewi, UCLG ASPAC ·· Eurasia: Rasikh Sagitov, UCLG Eurasia ·· Europe: Fréderic Vallier, CEMR ·· Latin America - CORDIAL: Sergio Arredondo, FLACMA, Nelson Fernández, Mercociudades ·· Middle East and West Asia: Mehmet Duman, UCLG MEWA ·· Metropolis: Octavi de la Varga ·· North America: Brock Carlton, FCM

Credits Agustí Fernández de Losada, Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Global Cities Programme at Barcelona Center for International Affairs (CIDOB), Spain Mariona Tomàs, Professor, Political Science Department, University of Barcelona, Spain With the support of: Anna Calvete Moreno, Expert on governance and global agendas, Barcelona, Spain Sue Bannister, Director, City Insight, eThekwini-Durban, South Africa Brian Roberts, Director, Urban Frontiers Ltd., Brisbane, and Emeritus Professor, University of Canberra, Australia Michael Sutcliffe, Director, City Insight, eThekwini-Durban, South Africa Eugeni Villalbí, Project Officer for the Metropolis Observatory Silvia Llorente, Project Officer for Metropolis Women Lia Brum, Content Curator, Metropolis Secretariat General

With special inputs from networks involved in the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments (www.global-taskforce.org)

UCLG World Secretariat

With special thanks for their contribution to the Barcelona Provincial Council (International Relations Directorate) and in particular to Kontxi Odriozola and Ana Tapia.

With the support of:

metropolis

Special acknowledgements for the financial and advisory support of:

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

Abbreviations and Acronyms

BRT – Bus Rapid Transit

MDG – Millennium Development Goal

C40 – C40 Cities Climate Leadership

NGO – Non-governmental organization

CEDAW – Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women CLGF – Commonwealth Local Government Forum CO2 – Carbon dioxide COP – Conference of the Parties

O OECD – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

CSO – Civil society organization

D DRC – Democratic Republic of the Congo

PEP BA – Participative Strategic Plan Buenos Aires 2035 PPP – Public-Private Partnership PPPP – Public-Private-People Partnership

GCoM – Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and

SDG – Sustainable Development Goal SDSN – United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network SME – Small and medium-sized enterprise SNG – Sub-national government

DG – Directorate General (European Commission)

Energy GDP – Gross domestic product GHG – Greenhouse gas GOLD – Global Observatory on Local Democracy and Decentralization GTF – Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments

H HLPF – United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development

I ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability IDP – Integrated Development Plan IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

T TALD – Territorial approach to local development

U UCLG – United Cities and Local Governments UNDESA – United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs UNSG – United Nations Secretary-General

IT – Information Technology

VLR – Voluntary Local Review VNR – Voluntary National Review

Km – Kilometre

WCCD – World Council on City Data WIEGO – Women in Informal Employment, Globalizing and Organizing

L LGA – Local government association LGBTQIA+ – Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual and other gender identities LMTA – Lagos Metropolitan Transport Authority LRG – Local and regional government

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Foreword

For more than a decade, the reports of the Global Observatory on Local Democracy and Decentralization (GOLD) have been identifying the trends of our ever-changing world, and helping us to make sense of the transformations that affect our planet and the human beings through the perspective of local and regional governments, the ones which are closest to citizens. Looking back into the five editions of the GOLD reports and seeing that the chapter on metropolitan areas is a common feature to all of them, I see it as one of the most unique features of GOLD, not only because it reflects the diversity and complementarity of the constituency of World Organization of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), but also because it shows how our metropolitan world has evolved so far. The GOLD V Report highlights the involvement of local and regional governments in mechanisms of coordination, monitoring and reporting to create a sense of collective responsibility for the achievement of more equitable, fair and sustainable societies. Providing an up-to-date global mapping of the processes of localization of the global agendas, GOLD V indicates how decentralization and multilevel governance, especially in metropolitan areas, can contribute to these processes.

I usually say that metropolitan spaces are the disruptive element in local and regional governance, requiring political will, leadership and generosity. As global and metropolitan challenges converge, sustainable development global agendas applied to large conurbations have a decisive impact on policy making. Consequently, metropolitan areas are the setting where some of the planet’s most pressing problems can be solved. This is the first time that the chapters of GOLD are released as stand-alone publications, and I am particularly grateful for this initiative. Crossing the inputs from different regions, the present publication reflects the collaboration between all the sections of UCLG, and is the result of the strengthened joint work of the teams of the UCLG World Secretariat and of the Metropolis Secretariat General. This year, which marks the fifth anniversary of the Montréal Declaration on Metropolitan Areas, recalls us of the importance to analyze and monitor metropolitan phenomena across the globe. The present publication serves as the first compass for this taskforce, offering Metropolis and our more than 130 members invaluable hints to make the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda a reality.

Octavi de la Varga Secretary-General World Association of the Major Metropolis (Metropolis) / Metropolitan section of UCLG

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

Background: Why SDG localization?

In 2015 and 2016, world leaders came together to set a historic milestone in multilateral cooperation with the adoption of global agreements towards sustainable development. The 2030 Agenda and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development all showcased a global will to respond to today’s global challenges through the adoption of a firm rights-based approach. Local and regional governments (LRGs) have risen to the scale of the challenge, demonstrating their commitment to the realization of the global agendas by putting in place elaboration, adoption and implementation processes. From their perspective, the global agendas are interlinked and cannot be achieved in isolation: all sustainability actions to address the highly interrelated challenges affecting our territories and cities must be fully integrated and comprehensive. The 2030 Agenda has been widely embraced across territories and represents a significant step forward in terms of ambition, universality and complexity with respect to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The interconnectedness of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides, on the one hand, our best shot at tackling the multi-dimensional challenges facing our societies. On the other, it requires a significant step up in policy-making efforts and the adoption of a truly integrated approach that ensures that ‘no one and no place are left behind’ — in other words, the UN ‘whole-of-government’ and ‘wholeof-society’ approach to development (see Box 1), encompassing a truly multilevel and multistakeholder governance system that puts people at the centre of development (see Box 2).

We currently stand at the end of the first quadrennial cycle of implementation of the SDGs, which means that the worldwide state of implementation of each SDG has been evaluated at least once. Consequently, the international community is taking this time to take stock of the progress made, the trends that have emerged and the challenges encountered over these past four years, and these will be discussed at the

Box 1

‘Whole-of-government’ and ‘whole-of-society’ approaches Multilevel and collaborative governance frameworks that emphasize the need to approach policy-making processes in an integrated way, factoring in all government bodies and members of society. Adopting these approaches is critical for advancing sustainable development, since they constitute the basis for policy coherence (see Box 7) by requiring policy-making to happen in an integrated manner beyond institutional siloes, promoting synergies and improving public accountability. Putting governance frameworks in place requires the establishment of adequate coordination and participation mechanisms that ensure that sub-national governments (SNGs) and members of society take part effectively in policy design, implementation and monitoring processes at all levels of government. Source: UNPAN; GTF, UCLG (2019), 'Towards the Localization of the SDGs'.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

SDG Summit in September 2019. According to the UN’s quadrennial Global Sustainable Report and the UN Secretary-General 2019 Special Report, positive trends have emerged at the aggregate global level, in particular regarding the implementation of SDGs 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 14.1 Extreme poverty, child mortality rates and the share of the urban population living in slums continue to decrease, while progress has been made with respect to health, certain gender equality targets and access to electricity in poor territories. However, the shift towards a new sustainability paradigm is not taking place at the pace and scale required to trigger the necessary transformation to meet the Goals by 2030. The incidence of hunger has continued to spread in 2019, a trend observed since 2016. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 70% of which cities are responsible for, also continue to increase, while the loss of biodiversity continues to accelerate dramatically as the intensity of climate change worsens.2 Despite the progress made in poverty reduction, rising inequality continues to fuel the exclusion of discriminated and disadvantaged populations (such as the poor, women, youth, the elderly, people with disabilities, ethnic and sexual minorities, amongst others). Moreover, although the means of implementation are progressing, finance for sustainable development remains an ongoing issue. Institutions often depleted by territorial conflict are not robust enough to respond to the magnitude of the interrelated challenges they face. As stressed by the UN Secretary-General (UNSG), the current social, economic and environmental trends that are shaping the world have a major impact on the realization of the SDGs and present a daunting challenge in terms of meeting the Goals in the mandated time. The UNSG identifies five such trends — urbanization, demographic change, climate change, protracted crises and frontier technologies.3 The interactions, synergies and trade-offs between these trends give rise to highly complex and interconnected policy-making environments at local, national and international levels. One of the main objectives of the GOLD V Report has been to examine how LRGs are contributing to the achievement of the global agendas in the face of such trends. These agendas — and the commitment of LRGs to achieving them — are changing our societies and promoting the evolution of good governance and citizen participation in highly diverse contexts all around the world. It is therefore critical to take this time to better understand where LRGs stand with respect to SDG implementation, and to revisit policy-making processes in order to take full advantage of the mutually reinforcing potential of global agendas and local processes as catalysers for change. The aim of the GOLD V Report is to contribute to such an endeavour, looking at

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

how to promote integrated policies and actions that meet today’s challenges from the local and regional perspective. The report highlights how, as part of their dayto-day responsibilities, LRGs are implementing policies and carrying out actions which although not always officially ‘SDG-labelled’, have a direct impact on populations’ access to infrastructure, services and life opportunities. As acknowledged by the UN General Assembly, the UNSG and the Habitat III consensus, the decarbonization of our economies and ensuring access to energy, water, food, transport and infrastructure will ultimately be achieved through project-level investments that take place mostly at the sub-national level and are led by LRGs.4 It is thus crucial to build up a critical mass of knowledge about how territories and cities are progressing towards sustainability, what initiatives are being put forward and what obstacles are being encountered if we are to achieve the SDGs and other global agendas. One of the main transformations humanity is experiencing is the rapid urbanization of society, and in this respect LRGs find themselves increasingly at the centre of many crucial challenges. The percentage of the world’s population living in urban areas is expected to rise from 55% to nearly 70% by 2050 — an increase of 2.3 billion urban dwellers likely to be concentrated in low and lower middle-income territories where urbanization is happening at the fastest rate. Changes in population growth, age composition and migration patterns heavily impact urbanization pathways and those of the surrounding territories, cutting across a wide range of SDGs — for example poverty eradication, access to food and water, health, gender equality, economic growth and decent work, the reduction of inequalities and promoting sustainable cities

Box 2

Multilevel governance A decision-making system based on coordination mechanisms that allow the allocation of competences and responsibilities of government both vertically and horizontally in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity (see Box 6) and that respect local autonomy. This system recognizes that there is no optimal level of decentralization (see Box 5) and that implementation and competences are strongly contextspecific: complete separation of responsibilities and outcomes in policymaking cannot be achieved and different levels of government are interdependent. Multilevel governance necessitates all levels sharing information and collaborating fully, so that every level can publicly and accountably lead horizontal relations with respective stakeholders to optimize policy outcomes. Source: UCLG (2016), 'Fourth Global Report on Local Democracy and Decentralization. Co-creating the Urban Future'.

that are better articulated with their hinterlands — which significantly influences the prospects for SDG implementation. At the aggregate level, world population growth has slowed compared with ten years ago and stands at an annual growth rate of 1.1%.5 However, such figures mask highly heterogeneous demographic patterns between regions and urban and rural territories. While more than half the growth forecast between 2019 and 2050 (estimated at two billion people) is expected to take place in Africa, Asia is expected to grow by 650 million people, Latin America by 180 million whilst Europe’s population is expected to decrease.6 Population growth will be concentrated in the least economically developed regions, which will make it even harder for those territories and cities to eradicate poverty and hunger and improve the provision of education, health and basic services. Moreover, the number of persons aged over 60 is expected to rise to 1.4 billion by 2030, although the pace at which the population is aging varies greatly between world regions. By 2050, all regions of the world are expected to have more than 25% of their populations aged over 60 — with the exception of Africa, which is expected to concentrate the world’s largest share of population aged between 15 and 19. Aging territories and cities will face increasing fiscal and political pressure to provide the elderly with pensions and social protection. At the same time, it will be critical for territories and cities with swelling youth populations to provide adequate healthcare, education and job opportunities to ensure the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Climate and environmental challenges are profoundly reshaping our territories and have a direct impact on cities. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2018 Special Report, the world has already

warmed by 1°C above pre-industrial levels and, at the current rate of warming of 0.2°C per decade, global warming will reach 1.5°C by 2030. This report stresses the pivotal role played by cities in climate change mitigation and in reaching the agreed goal of limiting climate change to 2°C, and if possible 1.5°C. Allowing global warming to reach 2°C will critically endanger natural and human systems and will particularly affect the most vulnerable populations and territories. Since 1990, climate-related extreme disasters have more than doubled. This, together with drastically changing weather conditions, is causing unquantifiable suffering and loss of human life and the destruction of infrastructure, aggravating resource scarcity and forcing the displacement of populations. Existing tensions act as risk multipliers for violence, putting additional pressure on often fragile political systems and resources. Since 2010, state-based and nonstate-based conflicts have risen by 60% and 125% respectively, while the number of globally displaced people has doubled over the past 20 years to reach 65 million.7 The deterioration of global peace constitutes a fundamental threat to the rule of law and good governance and, consequently, to the cornerstones of sustainable development. In the face of such challenges, it is imperative that we scale up and accelerate action before it is too late. In order to do so, we need to think differently about development strategies and adopt an evidence-based approach to sustainable development that reflects the reality of today’s world. Urbanization, the development of frontier technologies and connectivity are some of the defining features of our contemporary societies, and although they pose challenges to governance, they are also the key to achieving the SDGs and preserving life for future generations.

The Local and Regional Governments’ Forum, organized by the Global Taskforce, during the United Nations’ SDG Summit in New York on September 24, 2019 (photo: UCLG-CGLU/Ege Okal, bit.ly/2naVvsb).

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Purposes and goals of the report

The purpose of the GOLD V Report is to propose how these ambitious Global Goals and objectives can be met through policies, actions and initiatives designed and put in place by the territories and communities that make up cities, towns and regions. The report suggests that this cannot be done unless urban and territorial planning, strategic design, institutional environments and political roadmaps are fully embedded in the territories, i.e. ‘territorialized’, taking full advantage of local potentialities, involving all local stakeholders and building on local needs and demands. In other words, these goals can only be achieved through a fully-fledged, coowned and accountable process of localization of the global agendas (see Box 3). Territories and cities can lead transformational processes that promote development models that are both respectful of the environment and put people first. Territorialized development strategies based on integrated planning have the power to transform cities and territories, foster inclusion, reduce resource usage and GHG emissions, and improve rural-urban linkages. When coupled with cutting-edge technologies, the economies of scale facilitated by cities and their ability to attract innovation become major catalysts for the achievement of the SDGs, allowing for the development of alternative patterns of production and consumption, decentralized renewable energy systems, individualized healthcare, natural disaster detection solutions, and stronger bonds between cities, towns and their hinterlands. The possibilities are endless. As shown throughout the GOLD V Report, such localized development strategies, developed from and suited to local realities, also have an impact on the global process of transforming development, which in turn reinforces sustainable

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

local processes. The transformational potential of a territorial approach to local development (TALD) is enormous (see Box 4). Yet, in order to fully unleash it and ensure the implementation of the global development agendas, important challenges must be tackled. Significant efforts have been made since 2015 to implement the 2030 Agenda’s provisions and advance towards the achievement of the Goals. However, given the multi-dimensional challenges our societies are facing, the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs call for a move beyond narrow targeted policy-making towards a review of governance culture and

Box 3

Localization The 2030 Agenda emphasizes the need for an inclusive and localized approach to the SDGs. Localization is described as ‘the process of defining, implementing and monitoring strategies at the local level for achieving global, national, and sub-national sustainable development goals and targets.’ More specifically, it takes into account subnational contexts for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda, from the setting of goals and targets to determining the means of implementation and using indicators to measure and monitor progress. Source: GTF, UCLG (2019), 'Towards the Localization of the SDGs'; GTF, UNDP, UN-Habitat (2016), 'Roadmap for Localizing the SDGs: Implementation and Monitoring at Subnational Level'; UN Development Group (2014), 'Localizing the Post2015 Agenda' (outcome of the global UN dialogue process realized from June 2014 to October 2014).

institutions. As discussed in the GOLD V Report, existing national strategies and institutional frameworks for SDG implementation, as well as the state of decentralization and the means available for local implementation of the global agendas, determine the transformational strength that local action can achieve (see Box 5). Questions thus arise: can the SDGs both inspire local action and influence such institutional environments?; and can local action arising from the cities and territories translate into global change?

Box 4

Territorial approach to local development (TALD) National development policy that recognizes local development as being endogenous, incremental, spatially integrated and multiscalar, and which acknowledges the primary responsibility of local authorities for planning, managing and financing such local development — in other words, development that enables autonomous and accountable local authorities to leverage the contribution of actors operating at multiple scales to produce public goods and services tailored to the local reality, which in turn brings incremental value to national development efforts. Source: European Commission DEVCO (2016), 'Supporting decentralization, local governance and local development through a territorial approach'.

Box 5

Decentralization The existence of local authorities, as distinct from the state’s administrative authorities, to whom the legal framework allocates powers, resources and capacities to exercise a degree of selfgovernment in order to meet the allocated responsibilities. Their decision-making legitimacy is underpinned by representative, elected local democratic structures that determine how power is exercised and make local authorities accountable to citizens in their jurisdiction. The World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment proposes the following definition: ‘decentralization consists of the transfer of powers, responsibilities and resources from central government to sub-national governments, defined as separated legal entities elected by universal suffrage and having some degree of autonomy’. Source: UN Habitat (2009), 'International Guidelines on Decentralisation and Access to Basic Services'; UCLG (2008), 'Decentralization and Local Democracy in the World,First Global Report on Local Democracy and Decentralization'; OECD-UCLG (2019), 'World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investments'.

This is important for shedding light on a number of related issues affecting (and changing) development policy globally. As stated previously, this study primarily aims to show the state of progress of SDG achievement in the territories and emphasize its critical importance for the realization of the global agendas. On the one hand, it is widely acknowledged that fulfilment of the 2030 Agenda requires the full engagement and commitment of all levels of governance including LRGs, civil society and local stakeholders such as the private sector, social partners, academia and grassroots organizations. On the other, territories and local communities are where implementation is taking place. The key question addressed by the GOLD V Report is the extent to which towns, cities, provinces and regions have been able — through their actions and initiatives — to become part of the solution to the fundamental and historic challenges they face. Analyzing the progress that local governments are making in the implementation of the Goals and their ‘localization’ — bringing them down to the local level, rethinking and re-designing them so that they fit with the characteristics and demands of citizens and territories — is an indication of how well the SDG framework itself is developing, and how much there is still left to do. The GOLD V Report also aims to provide an updated picture on the current state of decentralization around the world. Achieving the SDGs and the other global agendas at the local level will not be possible unless territories, communities, and local authorities at different sub-national levels are adequately empowered, supported and funded. This implies strengthening and improving decentralization of the political system, promoting the devolution of competences and powers, ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity and making local governments responsible and accountable (see Box 6). This thematic report includes an analysis of national strategies for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and how LRGs are being engaged in this process, whether the institutional framework enables LRGs to be proactive in the implementation of these agendas, and the status of decentralization in the region. The report aims to answer questions on decentralization trends and the development of a truly multilevel understanding of policy-making: are LRGs more empowered and active than they used to be?; have the SDGs and the other global agendas driven any change in institutional relationships and vertical/horizontal cooperation?; are national planning and decision-making mechanisms and systems more open, sensitive to and aware of LRGs and their unique potential within territories and communities to effect change?

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Looking at decentralization and providing upto-date mapping of how this trend has evolved are all the more essential in studying territorial and municipal authorities, given that rapid (and often uncontrolled) urbanization has become a worldwide phenomenon and a fundamental challenge facing local governance. Urbanization has had a crucial impact on several dimensions of local and regional governance: from urban and territorial planning, to the provision of basic public services; from socio-economic equality to marginalization and informality in housing and work; from the inevitable impact of climate change to the creation of new social and cross-cutting alliances to improve democracy, transparency and the quality of life in cities and territories. However, advances in these fields raise fundamental questions of sustainability and viability. The global agendas were agreed with the expectation that LRGs would act as accelerators and catalysts in the process, but how is this pressure altering the political balance? What room is there for LRGs to see their competences, powers, capacities, financial and human resources grow and improve, making them more aware, responsible and able to play an active role in the global quest for sustainability, prosperity and inclusiveness? What kind of financial autonomy is really granted to local and regional governments? There are plenty of financial and management instruments (climate and green bonds, Public-Private-People Partnerships — PPPPs — and remunicipalizations, amongst many others) that are changing the way actors are empowered at all levels to become drivers of change and leaders in policy-making. In what way are these new opportunities accessible to local governments? And how can those that are more visionary and long-sighted fund and sustain their policies and agendas in the long term? The ability of LRGs to report on their policies and actions is also problematic since it is currently limited by a substantial lack of data, indicators and measurement which historically has not been devolved or disaggregated enough (with the partial exception of larger and wealthier regions and cities), hindering the capacity to grasp the huge potential at the local level for the localization and achievement of the Goals. Ultimately, the responsibilities that LRGs are assuming in the localization of the SDGs and other agendas are raising fundamental questions of local democracy, accountability and transparency, representation and the place occupied by the local level in the current global system. Can LRGs be catalysts for change in politics and development policy? Do LRGs have the means and capacities to ensure that ‘no person or place is left behind’? Can effective intergovernmental cooperation across all levels of governance improve performance, boost policy coherence (see Box 7) and help make the SDGs

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

Box 6

Subsidiarity The principle according to which public responsibilities should be exercised by those elected authorities closest to citizens. The central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those responsibilities or tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level. Subsidiarity requires that local governments have adequate financial, managerial and technical and professional resources to enable them to assume their responsibilities to meet local needs, carrying out a significant share of public expenditure. Local governments should be granted the authority and power to raise local resources in line with the principle that authority be commensurate with responsibility as well as the availability of resources. The principle of subsidiarity constitutes the rationale underlying the process of decentralization.

Source: UN Habitat, 'International Guidelines on Decentralisation and Access to Basic Services' (2009); UCLG (2013), 'Third Global Report on Local Democracy and Decentralization. Basic Services for All in an Urbanizing World'.

and the global agendas a reality, with positive effects on the quality of life of territories, cities, communities and society? Can the SDGs trigger a new model of development — urban, territorial, social, economic and human — which starts at the local level? This thematic report provides inputs, answers and critiques of these points, as well as exploring other relevant issues. The conclusions and policy recommendations provide a common vision and understanding of the way forward for LRGs.

Box 7

Policy coherence An approach to sustainable development that calls for the integration of economic, social, environmental and governance dimensions in the policy-making process, acknowledging the critical interlinkages that exist between the SDGs. It aims to foster synergies, promote partnerships and balance transboundary and intergenerational policy impacts in order to identify and manage the relationships between SDGs in a way that limits and overcomes any potential negative impact resulting from their implementation. Source: OECD (2019), 'Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2019'.

Metropolitan Areas

Members of Metropolis, the Metropolitan section of UCLG Africa Abidjan Accra Addis Ababa Alexandria Antananarivo Bamako Bangui Brazzaville Cairo Casablanca Cotonou Dakar Douala Durban Gauteng Harare Johannesburg Libreville Marrakech Niamey Nouakchott Rabat Tunis Victoria Yaoundé

Asia Ahvaz Amman Baghdad Bangkok

Europe Beijing Beyrouth Bhopal Bogor Busan Changchun Changsha Chengdu Chongqing Colombo Daegu Daejeon Dalian Diyarbakir East Kalimantan Faisalabad Fuzhou Gaziantep Goyang Guangzhou Gujranwala Gwangju Gyeonggi Haikou Hangzhou Hanoi Harbin Hyderabad Incheon Isfahan Istanbul Jakarta Jilin

Jinan Kaohsiung Karaj Kathmandu Kuala Lumpur Kunming Lahore Male’ Mashhad Nanjing Nanning New Delhi - NIUA New Taipei Ramallah Seoul Shanghai Shenzhen Shiraz South Tangerang Surabaya Tabriz Taichung Taipei Tehran Tianjin Ulsan Wuhan Xi’an Xiamen Yiwu Zhengzhou

Athens Barcelona (metropolitan area) Barcelona (city of) Berlin Bruxelles Bucharest Grand Lyon Grand Paris Greater Manchester Kazan Lisboa Madrid Moscow Sarajevo Sofia Torino Zagreb

Latin America and the Caribbean Belo Horizonte Bogotá Brasília Buenos Aires Córdoba Guarulhos Guayaquil

La Habana La Paz Medellín Minas Gerais Montevideo Porto Alegre Quito Rio de Janeiro Rosario San Salvador Santiago de Chile São Paulo Valle de Aburrá

North America Atlanta Ciudad de México Guadalajara Monterrey Montréal Puebla Tijuana Toronto

Source: www.metropolis.org (August 2019).

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

01. Introduction: The Metropolitan Areas

The accelerated expansion of metropolitan regions is an increasingly visible phenomenon in the 21st century. According to United Nations (UN) data the urban population of the world has grown rapidly, increasing from 751 million in 1950 to 4.2 billion in 2018. More than 1.8 billon people live in cities with more than 1 million inhabitants (43% of the urban population and 24% of the total world population), while 556 million (13% of the urban population) live in 33 megacities with more than 10 million inhabitants. Tokyo is the world's largest city with an agglomeration of 37 million inhabitants, followed by Delhi with 29 million, Shanghai with 26 million, and Mexico City and São Paulo each with around 22 million inhabitants. Cairo, Mumbai, Beijing and Dhaka all have close to 20 million inhabitants. By 2030, the world is projected to have 43 megacities, most of them in developing regions.1 Metropolitan areas, as defined in the GOLD IV Report, are urban agglomerations with more than one million inhabitants, including the physical contiguous urban area and the labor market. However, different types of metropolitan areas coexist in the global system of cities, from globalized ‘established’ metropolises hosting the densest concentrations of firms, capital and educated labor (e.g. Hong Kong, London, New York, Paris and Tokyo), through extended metropolitan areas of low and middle low-income countries dominated by slums and informal economies (e.g. Dhaka, Kinshasa, Lagos), with a group of ‘emerging’ world cities of large fast-growing economies (such as Istanbul, Mexico City, São Paulo and Shanghai) in-between, to metropolises

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

of emerging countries with more pronounced social and economic contrasts (e.g. Cairo, Delhi, Johannesburg, Manila). Globally, metropolitan cities are viewed as places of innovation, wealth generation, culture and opportunity, accounting for 60% of the world’s GDP.2 They are home to government bodies, leading companies, universities, research and cultural centers and key civil society organizations (CSOs), as well as a large proportion of talent and creativity, technological innovation, interconnectedness and artistic output worldwide. However, the quality of life in many metropolitan areas is increasingly threatened by congestion, pollution, social and gender inequalities and violence, amongst other socio-economic and environmental problems. Metropolitan cities often have fragmented urban landscapes that range from wealthy to marginalized (or even ghettoized)

Different types of metropolitan areas co-exist in the global system of cities, from globalized ‘established’ metropolises hosting the densest concentrations of firms, capital and educated labour, through extended metropolitan areas of low and middle low-income countries dominated by slums and informal economies.

Figure 1

Population residing in urban areas (%) and urban agglomerations by population size (2018)

Percentage urban

80-100%

City population

10 million or more

60-80%

40-60% 5 million to 10 million

20-40%

0-20%

No data

1million to 5 million

Data source: World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 revision. The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties. Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined. A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). © 2018 United Nations, DESA, Population Division. Licensed under Creative Commons license CC BY 3.0 IGO.

neighborhoods, with core and peripheral areas. The growth of metropolitan areas has given rise to peripheral development spaces on the outskirts — or suburbs — which become peripheral to the urban economy, main infrastructures or institutional processes. In developing countries, rapid urbanization has often seen the rise of extended informal settlements in these peripheries, home to hundreds of thousands of people with limited or no access to basic services who are often more exposed to natural disasters. It is worth remembering that over 900 million people currently live in slums, most of them within metropolitan areas. Metropolitan areas have become a key battleground for reducing inequalities, addressing climate change challenges and protecting human rights and, as specifically highlighted by the New Urban Agenda, establishing the ‘right to the city’

(right to gender equality, housing, mobility, safety, basic services and culture), a principle supported by organizations representing metropolitan cities such as Metropolis,3 as well as the peripheral cities of metropolitan areas organized through the UCLG’s Peripheral Cities Committee. The New Urban Agenda, moreover, lays the groundwork for initiatives that result in more democratic and sustainable cities, within the framework of human rights. The inclusion in the New Urban Agenda of women’s right to the city, in particular can become a tool to demand the fulfilment of these commitments and monitor their implementation. Indeed, the challenges facing metropolitan areas show regional specificities.4 The Asia-Pacific region dominates the global urban system, with around 326 cities with a population of over one million, of which 21 are megacities (predicted to rise to 27 by 2035). The

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

GDP growth of Asia-Pacific cities in recent years has shown a strong positive correlation with urbanization. There are, nevertheless, important sub-regional differences. While big cities in East Asia show high densities, many metropolitan areas — particularly in the South and South-East of the region — are growing at a faster rate than population growth rates, leading to urban sprawl and a fall in population density. Disparities are also growing between cities and countries across the region, hindering the achievement of SDG 10. While the proportion of the urban population living in slums has decreased, the number of people living in slums is increasing, particularly in South and South-East Asian sub-regions. As mentioned in the Asia-Pacific chapter of the GOLD V Report, Asia is home to more than half the world’s cities most vulnerable to natural disasters such as rising sea levels as a result of climate change.5 Latin America and the Caribbean region have 74 cities with more than one million inhabitants (46% of the urban population) and six megacities. One of the main concerns here is security in metropolitan areas.6 The annual report on the 50 most dangerous cities6 finds that the majority are found in Latin America, except for three in South Africa and four in the United States. Inequalities, environmental problems and the impact of natural disasters are also on the rise in urban areas. The New Urban Agenda aims to achieve adequate shelter and secure tenure, particularly for people living in slums; promote a more inclusive urbanism to reduce segmented urban spaces characterized by gentrified neighbourhoods (gated communities, condos, etc.) and informal settlements (shanty towns, slums, favelas, villas miseria, etc.); and promote the right to the city for all.7 Africa’s population is expected to more than double by 2050 to around 2.5 billion (25% of the global population).8 During this period, the urban population will increase threefold, from around 587 million people to around 1.5 billion.9 The region currently has 68 cities with more than one million inhabitants (37% of all urban dwellers) and five megacities. Urban planning systems have not changed significantly since the colonial era, and although some efforts have been made at reform, many master plans are outdated or not applied.10 Moreover, economic growth does not generate sufficient employment options in the urban formal sector, thus urban areas tend to have high rates of unemployment and informal activities, particularly for youth. There are difficulties managing the pace of urban population growth which has contributed to the development of informal settlements with limited access to basic services. The proportion of people living in informal settlements represents 40% to 58% of urban dwellers.11 Cities are also facing environmental degradation and environmental risks such as flooding, hurricanes, etc.12

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

The countries of the Global North are home to the remaining metropolitan areas (Europe, including Russia, and Northern America together contain 111 cities of more than one million inhabitants, with four megacities). As outlined in the Urban Agenda for the European Union adopted in Amsterdam in May 2016, issues relating to social inclusion and sustainability are a priority for European urban areas. Four issues in particular have been highlighted as key: a) environment (climate change mitigation and adaptation, aging infrastructure and densification); b) competitiveness (jobs and new technologies, innovative territorial competitiveness); c) transport and energy (mobility, pollution reduction and energy efficiency); and d) social and territorial cohesion (migration and refugees, social participation).13 Gentrification has also become a key issue in European metropolitan areas, since it influences the price of housing at the metropolitan scale. Northern American metropolitan areas are facing five main challenges with regards to sustainable development: a) institutional fragmentation within and between areas which prevents metropolitan coordination; b) legacy technology (energy, transportation, and water infrastructure in Northern America are old and in need of renewal); c) the existing car-oriented approach to land-use, transportation and housing; d) lack of a national framework for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and carbon reduction strategies, leaving it to lower levels of government (states and municipalities) to take the initiative on sustainable development; and e) income inequality and the precariousness of housing in large metropolitan areas (in the United States for example, in spite of being one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, there is 22% child poverty).14 Finally, the impact of technology in large cities around the world is also worth mentioning. First, the efficient use of technology as part of the ‘smart cities’ paradigm: acknowledging information and data to be a common good, but also respecting the rights of citizens to privacy, freedom of expression and democracy, which a number of cities are already doing.15 Second, the impact of the shared economy in cities, especially in sectors such as tourism and e-commerce, will be an important challenge to monitor.16 One of the main purposes of this publication is to illustrate how metropolitan governance affects the implementation of the SDGs.17 The second section reviews the main challenges such as institutional fragmentation and the need for coordinated multilevel governance (MLG), while the third section addresses how metropolitan areas are implementing the SDGs. Throughout, it showcases examples of positive and less positive reforms and experiments from around the world. Finally, the thematic report concludes with policy recommendations.

02. The metropolitan context and the SDGs

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Metropolitan governance and its broad institutional environment has a direct impact on the implementation of the SDGs. The 2030 Agenda must be translated into actions and policies at different scales. Metropolitan governance is thus key to the success of an integrated approach to sustainable development, as required in the implementation of the SDGs. While national political commitment and leadership are vital, given the governance structures of most countries, responsibility for actual implementation lies with local institutions.18 A range of issues must be factored in to the way in which metropolitan areas approach implementation of the SDGs. As the process of reform and adjustment has not kept pace with urban expansion, metropolitan governance has not kept pace with the intensified demands made upon it. As highlighted in the Montreal Declaration on Metropolitan Areas approved in Montreal in October 2015 for Habitat III, in general metropolitan areas enjoy limited political recognition.19 This results in metropolitan spaces being institutionally fragmented: multiple administrations and agencies oversee the development of urban policies, creating problems both of duplication and lack of responsibility. There iare also issues of governance and leadership. In a few cases, metropolitan areas have directly or indirectly elected metropolitan governments. In OECD countries,20 Northern America21 and Latin America22 indirect election models predominate, where those elected as political representatives in their respective municipalities form part of the metropolitan structure, with a direct impact on metropolitan institutional legitimacy and visibility from the citizen's perspective. The Declaration stresses the need to promote a new partnership with other levels of government to strengthen metropolitan governance mechanisms and implement financing mechanisms adapted to metropolitan challenges; develop integrated participatory planning to reduce sprawl, promote the use of fully disaggregated data (by age, gender and territory) on socio-demographic and economic trends, and foster functionally and socially mixed neighbourhoods; ensure safe and sustainable mobility and environmental sustainability to fight

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT â&#x20AC;&#x201D;â&#x20AC;&#x201D; METROPOLITAN AREAS

climate change; and promote inclusive policies for housing, social services, gender equality and cultural heritage. Transversally, gender equality should be mainstreamed within all such policies. In addition, metropolitan areas often have limited fiscal autonomy: they mostly depend on transferences from other administrations, as well as on the national institutional framework and the powers and resources devolved to them.23 The elements that shape the institutional environment at a metropolitan scale for the development of the SDGs are briefly reviewed in the next section. The first section examines the different models of metropolitan governance and their relationship with the implementation of SDGs, while the second considers the institutional environment and arrangements needed to facilitate actions. The last section is devoted to analysis of references made to metropolitan areas in the Voluntary National Reports (VNRs) of 2016, 2017 and 2018. The Habitat III thematic meeting in Montreal, in October 2015 (photo: ÂŠ Metropolis/BenDesjardins).

2.1 Metropolitan governance

As big cities have grown beyond their historical, political and electoral boundaries, their governance has become more complex and fragmented, comprising a series of local governments, authorities, agencies and interests that were not designed to address issues at the metropolitan scale. This results in them usually being governed by some form of power-sharing, with varying levels of legitimacy and transparency. In fact there are many models of metropolitan governance, with no one model suitable for all. Each metropolitan area has its particularities and form of governance. As stated in GOLD IV and other reports,24 four main models of metropolitan governance are generally recognized based on the type of institutional arrangements in place, ranging from hard to soft governance:25 • Metropolitan governments or structures created expressly to deal with metropolitan challenges (one-tier or two-tier). • Sectoral metropolitan agencies to manage or plan single services (public transport, environment, police, etc.). • Vertical coordination, where metropolitan policies are not carried out by a metropolitan body but de facto by other levels of government that already exist (a region, a province, a county, etc.). • Less institutionalized models (soft or informal coordination) based on municipalities’ voluntary cooperation through an association of municipalities or by means of strategic planning. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages. Most metropolitan areas are in fact hybrids of more than one model because of their complex geographies, the status of different delivery agencies, and the fact that they are nested within governance structures both above and below them. While there is an ongoing debate about the positive and negative features of these

different types of metropolitan governance, this publication considers them in the context of implementation of the SDGs. 26 Different concepts are linked to the development of urban sustainable agendas and the model of metropolitan governance. The first model — metropolitan governments — does not in itself guarantee effective implementation of the SDGs, especially when there is a lack of binding mechanisms (often the case in the twotier model).27 In other words, the absence of exclusive powers for these institutions in key areas is a weaknessin metropolitan arrangements. Competence for key infrastructures such as highways, railways, ports and airports is typically in the hands of national or sub-national governments (federated states and regions). Another obstacle is the lack of fiscal autonomy of metropolitan institutions, which is especially problematic in light of the fact that municipal expenditures per capita tend to be higher in metropolitan areas because of the nature of services (e.g. public transportation and waste collection). In most cases, funding from metropolitan institutions comes from a mixture of sources, mainly transfers from other levels of government and taxes. Whilst in France, new métropoles have more financial autonomy (own taxes), in England there is a direct assignment from central government.28 Relying heavily on own-source revenues (taxes and user fees) and having the freedom to levy taxes creates more fiscal autonomy than reliance on intergovernmental transfers, which can be unpredictable and restrict the ability of metro institutions to control their own destiny.29 The absence of powerful metropolitan governments means that, in practice, their actions are often bypassed by the municipalities (for example in Barcelona and Montreal)30 or central government (for example, Bangkok).31 Thus in order to achieve greater policy coherence, cooperation needs to be strengthened between

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

different levels of government to ensure that policies aligned with the SDGs are effective. That said, it is also true that having a metropolitan government at least provides the institutional framework to legitimize the development of urban agendas. One clear example of this is Seoul, capital city of South Korea and one of eight high-level local governments classed as a ‘Special City’. Democratic reforms in South Korea in the 1990s led to the first mayoral election in Seoul in 1995. Seoul is pursuing sustainable development through key initiatives based on participatory urban planning and governance processes. It is the only metropolitan area in the Asia-Pacific region to attempt to address all 17 SDG Goals, but not all the Targets (see Asia-Pacific chapter of the GOLD V Report, Box 4). In fact, the metropolitan government of Seoul does not cover the full metropolitan functional area. In contrast, the second model of metropolitan governance based on sectoral metropolitan agencies (and utilities) that manage or plan a single task or service (public transport, environment, police, etc.) can be useful for the implementation of one of the Goals (e.g. mobility, water and sanitation etc.), but the main weakness of this model is that it lacks an integrated vision. To compensate for this single issue focus, coordination with other agencies and levels of government is essential, as can be found in the case of Melbourne. Indeed, Greater Melbourne is made up of 31 municipalities which vary in land area and budget. At both state and municipal government levels there are initiatives underway to localize the SDGs. 32 In terms of the third model of vertical coordination, where metropolitan policies are not carried out by a metropolitan body but by other levels of government (a region, a province, a county etc.), the development of SDGs depends mainly on the competences and financing of this layer of government (and how it is coordinated with other layers). One example of this is Metropolitan Lagos, located in Lagos State in the south-west of Nigeria. The metropolitan area of Lagos comprises 16 local government areas which, together with a further four local government areas, combine to form the State of Lagos. Many of the responsibilities of local government areas in Lagos have been taken over by the state government which has established up to 11 agencies to undertake functions in Lagos, and this has contributed to high institutional fragmentation. Attempts have been made to move beyond sectoral metropolitan authorities and establish a Lagos Mega-City Development Authority, as set out in a Bill, but this has not yet been realized.33 In contrast, Berlin also has a model of vertical coordination which has proved more successful. With 3.5 million inhabitants, it is both a German Lan of the Federal Republic of

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

This publication considers the different types of metropolitan governance through the lens of implementation of the SDGs. Germany and a city. This means that the Senate Chancellery of the federal state of Berlin is located in Berlin Town Hall and is the official seat of the Governing Mayor of Berlin, who has the same rank as a minister-president. The city-state of Berlin has more powers than ordinary German cities. However, the metropolitan area exceeds the administrative limits of the city-state and includes the surrounding municipalities of the Berlin-Brandenburg metropolitan region, which has no institutional recognition. It is the city-state of Berlin then that leads the development of a metropolitan vision.34 Finally, the fourth less institutionalized models are based on municipalities’ voluntary cooperation, whether through an association of municipalities or by means of strategic planning. These are soft forms of metropolitan governance, where other actors can participate in the development of the SDGs. This model is often used as a mechanism to gather all actors together where there is high institutional fragmentation. There is therefore a large degree of openness towards public and private actors and other stakeholders. One outstanding example is New York City (NYC), which was the first city in the world to report to the UN on the status of efforts to achieve the global benchmarks to address poverty, inequality and climate change by the year 2030. Since 2015, NYC's sustainability initiatives have been carried out under the OneNYC strategic plan (see North American chapter of the GOLD V Report, Box 1). Although there is no one size fits all solution, adequate metropolitan governance arrangements can contribute to an integrated vision on sustainable urban development, which is required for implementation of the SDGs. At the same time, the increasingly complex landscape of urban metropolitan areas — megacities, urban regions and corridors — and the challenges posed by the SDGs and related global agendas requires a rethink of metropolitan governance systems in order to better address the whole urban functional area and overcome institutional, social and spatial fragmentation. Weak metropolitan governance undermines the potential of metropolitan areas to function as cornerstones of national sustainable development.

2.2 Institutional arrangements to foster the implementation of the SDGs

The effective functioning of MLG is a key factor in creating an enabling institutional environment for the implementation of the SDGs. Indeed, lack of coordination between the different institutions involved in metropolitan management with competences related to the development of the SDGs clearly affects their implementation.35 In the case of metropolitan areas, this coordination is in the hands of cities when no metropolitan institutions exist or when metropolitan institutions have limited powers. A key question related to institutional fragmentation is city form and size, which affects leadership and the capacity to guide the development of urban agendas. Some metropolitan areas are monocentric, with a dominant central city where the implementation of the SDGs is clearly led by the main city, especially when they have a predominant demographic, economic and political weight (e.g. Madrid and Berlin). This is also the case for consolidated local governments such as eThekwini Municipality (a merger of Durban and other municipalities) in South Africa, Nairobi in Kenya and Toronto in Canada, where a single elected local government administers the whole metropolitan area (but where the urban area has spilled over the administrative boundaries). Other metropolitan areas, such as Manila, are polycentric and leadership is more diluted among the different municipalities. Another significant problem concerns utility service agencies, which may be provided by a public agency state-owned enterprise, Public-

A significant problem concerns utility service agencies that are not brought into, or show no interest in, localizing the SDGs.

Private Partnership (PPP) or other outsourcing arrangement. Many of these utilities are not brought into the localizing of the SDGs, and some show no interest in doing so. For example, there is little incentive for privatized water utilities to achieve savings in water supply as this will have an impact on profits. This problem has arisen in Manila and Jakarta, where water supplies have been privatized. The same applies to solid waste services, electricity and energy, where payments are based on increased sales rather than rewarding efficiencies which would support achievement of the SDGs. Some cities, often prompted by the citizenship, have fostered the creation of city-owned enterprises for the supply of basic services such as energy, following the principles of environmental sustainability (they only supply renewable energy) and social sustainability (they ensure service provision to the most vulnerable groups). This is the case in Hamburg,36 Barcelona37 (energy services), Paris,38 and Dar es Salaam39 (water services), with the numbers growing. In this sense, as underlined in GOLD IV, empowered local governments with stronger democratic legitimacy are a precondition for promoting inclusive implementation arrangements to facilitate dialogue and consensus. Their success depends on the availability of an adequate legal framework and related incentives to achieve â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;buyinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; from all levels of government â&#x20AC;&#x201D; particularly from core and peripheral cities.40 This is important as peripheral jurisdictions often find it difficult to advance their interests over the interests of central cities, whose bargaining power with investors and higher levels of government can be superior.41 The imperative for peripheral cities and territories is to create governance arrangements that reflect both their importance to metropolitan areas and their distinctiveness within them, fostering a polycentric and inclusive approach to metropolitan issues. Existing examples show that the democratic legitimacy of local governmentled metropolitan partnerships is critical to building

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

effective policies for larger regional issues, as well as strong respect for the principle of subsidiarity in multi-layered contexts.42 The situation differs depending on the characteristics of cities and metropolitan spaces in each continent, but there are several cases in all the continents where multilevel governance is not particularly effective. Metro cities such as Los Angeles, Manila, Bangkok, Sao Paulo, Colombo and Sydney comprise a multiplicity of layers of central government agencies and local governments, often with differing political leanings. Cities such as Bangkok, Delhi, and Manila have imposed metropolitan development authority governance structures to address coordination and urban management issues, but these have a number of weaknesses.43 In Auckland, New Zealand, regional coordination difficulties between five local governments led the central government to hold an enquiry that resulted in amalgamation into one metropolitan region.44 In some cases, however, local governments have been able to build voluntary bottom-up metropolitan partnerships despite a national context that largely favours top-down arrangements. Greater Manchester in the United Kingdom is one example where the practice of voluntary partnership emerged over 25 years under the stewardship of committed and charismatic local politicians. This resulted in the establishment of a combined authority to bring together ten local authorities and provide a stronger and more democratically legitimate model of metropolitan governance.45 In Indonesia, the Kartamantul partnership stands out as an example of horizontal cooperation (see Box 1). The complexity of multiple layers of local government and the competition for resources between them makes it extremely difficult to create a competitive enabling environment in large cities. A deep-rooted ethos of political consensus can make this voluntary approach highly effective, although it is the exception rather than the rule (e.g. in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden).47 In other situations, tackling the institutional challenges facing local government will involve reducing the number of institutions operating at a metropolitan scale and increasing the profile of local government. One of the emerging experiences in Africa has been ensuring local government powers are entrenched in the constitution and, through re-demarcation, that single jurisdictions are created, particularly in metropolitan areas. This was the case in South Africa in the period 1996-2000 and, more recently, in Kenya, where Nairobi and Mombasa have been accorded county status. In the Asia-Pacific region, some metropolitan areas actively working on the SDGs have established independent frameworks and reporting mechanisms that will have to be integrated into national reporting and sub-

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT â&#x20AC;&#x201D;â&#x20AC;&#x201D; METROPOLITAN AREAS

Box 1

The Kartamantul Partnership Like other countries in the Asia-Pacific region, Indonesia faces many challenges in localizing the SDGs at a metropolitan level. These apply to Kartamantul as much as they apply to Jakarta or Medan. 1. Functional assignment. Most of the SDG indicator achievements are carried out by programmes at city/regency levels, while the preparation of local action plans is executed by provincial governments (money follows function). 2. Coordination between provinces and cities/regencies. In several local training sessions conducted by the Localize SDGs programme, one of the issues raised was that coordination should be improved between provincial and city/regency governments in relation to the SDGs. At provincial levels, awareness of the SDGs is relatively high whereas at city/ regency levels it is less pronounced. 3. Data availability. The Ministry of Planning (Bappenas) has prepared SDG indicators metadata. However, at regional levels not all data is available due to limited access, differences in calculation etc. Kartamantul (Greater Yogyakarta) forms part of the Special Yogyakarta region and is made up of Yogyakarta City, Sleman and Bantul Regency. The population of Kartamantul in 2017 was 2.4 million,46 covering an area of 1,114 km2. Kartamantul is an inter-local government partnership in Indonesia managed by a joint secretariat, covering one city (Yogyakarta) and two regencies (Sleman Regency and Bantul Regency). It was set up after decentralization in 2000 to manage and coordinate the following services, although it does not rely on a formal metropolitan regional plan: garbage management, liquid and solid waste management, drainage management, road management, clean water, transportation and spatial layout in the region. The Kartamantul Partnership can be sustained as long as local governments recognize their mutual dependency and act for common, shared interests and objectives. In this sense, it has proved to be a valuable management mechanism to ensure improved coordination of planning and infrastructure in the region. Source: Bappenas (2018). 'The Survey on Promoting Planning and Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) In the Republic of Indonesia'.

metropolitan regions' reporting at a later stage. However, in metropolitan areas such as Manila and Jakarta, cities making up the metropolitan area have different agendas and priorities in localizing the SDGs.48 It is extremely difficult, therefore, to gain consensus between the many layers of metropolitan government, and even more difficult when metropolitan utilities such as state-owned or privatized water and electricity utilities are included in the reporting framework. Moreover, the degree of local autonomy also affects the capacity to solve metropolitan challenges in implementing the SDGs. While

The 2010 gay pride parade as it makes its way through the favela of Rocinha, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (photo: Saulo Cruz, bit.ly/2Mx8jSd).

in European Nordic countries municipalities have a high degree of financial autonomy and competences in health, education and sustainability, local governments of most African,49 Asian and Latin American countries lack the powers and financial, technical and human resources to solve these issues. In other words, they are more dependent on national policies. Implementing the SDGs could bridge this gap, but it will require the development of improved and new governance arrangements and structures to coordinate approaches both vertically and horizontally between the different governments and agencies to ensure an adequate share of resources across all levels of government to achieve common targets. Over the past few years, governance approaches have shifted towards more participatory and decentralized processes, where the principles of co-creation, accountability, transparency, inclusion and citizen rights advocacy have been the true drivers of social change. However, despite progress towards more inclusive mechanisms, and women and other vulnerable groups enjoying an unprecedented institutional presence in decisionmaking processes, there is still much to be done before governance models truly promote equality and challenge discrimination and women’s rights violations (SDG 5). These goals can only be achieved by acknowledging and highlighting the inequalities and difficulties that

women still face in their daily lives in metropolises and urban communities: differences in class, education, accessible financial resources, quality of life, culture and symbolic environment and legacies. To tackle these differences — through redesigning access and use of urban facilities and public space, as well as including all marginalized groups in planning and political organization — it is essential to re-think the way metropolises are managed. This should not be limited to the women’s collective, but should also include all other ‘invisible’ groups of today’s cities for example LGBTQIA+ communities, ethnic and religious minorities and age groups.50 To conclude, there are a number of different metropolitan governance mechanisms for the implementation of the SDGs. However, a fair and sustainable metropolitan governance system should ultimately observe several key principles: empowered local governments with elected metropolitan authorities that are accountable to their citizens; subsidiarity, with a clear definition of roles and powers between different levels of government and among local governments; and adequate resources and financial instruments to incentivize and encourage local government cooperation.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

2.3 Metropolitan areas and the Voluntary National Reports

An analysis of the VNRs for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 shows that a growing number refer to the contribution of sub-national governments and, in particular, big cities in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda. The VNRs have begun to address the metropolitan dimension as well, although it does not attract sufficient coverage and challenges relating to metropolitan areas are not clearly addressed. A few countries (e.g. Poland, 2018) recognize the identity of metropolitan areas and involve them in the multi-level governance system for SDG implementation. Australia (2018) relied on the country’s LGAs, major cities and the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council (Perth) in drafting the VNR. These three tiers of government are also involved in the City Deals programme to deliver long-term outcomes for large cities and regions and the 2030 Agenda, further underlining the leading roles played by Perth Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council and Melbourne City Council.51 Mexico’s 2018 VNR acknowledges that ‘although they do not have metropolitan governments, metropolitan areas — as large population centres — also play an important role [and] have the potential to impact national achievements’,52 thus recognizing the need to localize the SDGs to reduce important differences between metropolitan areas as highlighted by the Sustainable Cities Index created by Citibanamex. Significant opportunities have been missed, for example in Italy where, despite having a specific national operational programme for metropolitan areas affected by economic and social marginalization, urban decay and lack of services (PON Metro), the 2017 VNR was not able to assess the status and performance of each of these metropolitan areas in terms of their achievement of the SDGs. In contrast in Brazil, where a 2015 federal law set out requirements for the institutionalization of metropolitan areas as well as guidelines for planning and multilevel governance,53 the federal government recognizes the importance of such institutions in the 2017 VNR by underlining the awareness-raising

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

initiatives that have been undertaken, specifically targeted at metropolitan areas (dissemination of a localization manual for SDG 11). In other VNRs, metropolitan areas (or large cities) are analysed from a substantive perspective — as in the Colombian 2016 VNR — or introduced as examples of good practice together with those of other local and regional governments (Ecuador 2018 VNR presents the experiences of Quito; whilst the Japan 2018 VNR highlights the Kitakyushu Metropolitan Area). Some VNRs analyse key metropolitan challenges: the national governments’ new regulatory benchmarking, structural plans, urban policies and management plans within the cities (e.g. Saudi Arabia 2018 VNR for Riyadh); the creation of new urban centres to stop the growth of non-sustainable practices in the principal ones (e.g. Qatar 2018 VNR for Doha, and Egypt 2018 VNR for Cairo); urban planning, health, housing and security (e.g. Uruguay 2017 VNR); exclusion and social vulnerability, and coastal management (e.g. Brazil 2017); environment (e.g. South Korea 2016 VNR, which includes two metropolitan indicators, namely metropolitan air quality and size of park areas in metropolitan cities); and transport (e.g. Sri Lanka 2018 VNR, Belgium 2017 VNR for Antwerp and Brussels). The Greek 2018 VNR outlines the roles played by Athens and Thessaloniki, giving them a high profile in the report with abundant references to their achievements with regards to a number of metropolitan challenges. Additionally, the drafting of regulatory plans for their territories is the fourth pillar of the Integrated Spatial Planning Strategy (together with the national document, the twelve regional documents and other specific frameworks). In spite of the fact that many successful local initiatives have been used as examples in the national VNRs, the space given to metropolitan areas and their specific problems is insufficient, clearly demonstrating that work with these institutions is not considered strategic by national authorities globally. More joint work with, and greater visibility of, metropolitan areas will be needed in the years to come.

03. Metropolitan actions for the implementation of the SDGs Cities and thus metropolitan areas are among the frontrunners as far as the 2030 Agenda localization process is concerned, and this is demonstrated throughout the different regions of the world. The regional chapters of the GOLD V Report have shown that metropolitan areas such as Buenos Aires, Barcelona, Berlin, Copenhagen, Durban, Los Angeles, Madrid, Mexico City, Medellin, New York, Quito, Paris, Shenzhen and Seoul amongst others have taken the lead, often ahead of their national governments. They have committed to achieving the 2030 Agenda by aligning their development agendas and public policies to implement the SDGs; by making institutional arrangements to facilitate coordinated implementation; by engaging citizens and metropolitan stakeholders in the SDGs; and by sharing experiences and dealing with metropolitan challenges such as transport, climate change and social inclusion. However, metropolitan areas must manage significant obstacles as part of this process. The next section looks at different metropolitan experiences to understand how big cities are addressing the 2030 Agenda, both directly and indirectly, through their sustainable development strategies and policies.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

3.1 Metropolitan contributions to the achievement of the SDGs

Metropolitan areas and big cities have been among the most committed actors worldwide to address the 2030 Agenda and to align their development strategies, plans and public policies with the SDGs. Many have acknowledged that the challenges they face can be addressed by the Agenda and that they are already contributing to the SDGs through a wide range of innovative solutions and practices. They see the 2030 Agenda as an opportunity to improve their policy-making processes, addressing sustainable development in a more integrated manner, involving citizens and metropolitan stakeholders, focusing on the most vulnerable and being more transparent and accountable. Many metropolitan cities have made important progress in the alignment of their strategies and local development plans with the SDGs, as well as with the other global agendas (the Paris Agreement on climate change, the New Urban Agenda and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction). However, metropolises in most contexts face important institutional constraints. Together with the inherent weaknesses in governance, the challenges faced by metropolitan areas are often under-reported in the global, regional and national agendas, as already discussed. The New Urban Agenda and the Paris Agreement on climate change, for example, give insufficient recognition to the metropolitan dimension, despite the presence of top mayors at Habitat III, at the COP 21 and, annually, at the HLPF in New York. Despite this complex reality, the 2030 Agenda, as well as other global agendas, have served as leverage to improve the policy-making process at metropolitan level. The process of aligning sustainable development plans with the 2030 Agenda has led to concerted efforts by metropolises to involve teams, citizens and metropolitan stakeholders. Mexico City, for example, launched a training and awarenessraising workshop for members of the government,

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

officials and representatives of the main institutions of the city to introduce the SDGs as part of for the new planning process to begin after the 2018 elections.54 Bogotá used the SDGs to develop new platforms for citizen participation, in partnership with the UN. Buenos Aires and Quito have also led the alignment process in their countries (see Box 2). Amsterdam through its MediaLab launched the so-called Global Goals Jam 2017, a two-day event consisting of short design sprints, which brought together local creative teams of designers, developers and

Box 2

The case of Buenos Aires (Argentina) The Participative Strategic Plan Buenos Aires 2035 (PEP BA 2035) is the result of joint work with 183 civil society organizations (CSOs). Organized into working groups, the selected local stakeholders defined from scratch the goals, vision, strategic axes, guidelines, proposals and projects. PEP BA 2035 identified five strategic axes related to the SDGs (31 out of 96 proposals are aligned), one of them being the metropolitan axis which includes all competences related to sustainable mobility, infrastructures, services, waste management, basins, ports and airports, and metropolitan information systems. Special consideration is also given to metropolitan resilience, including prevention and early warning of the different phenomena associated with climate change. One of the biggest challenges is establishing a metropolitan institution. The city is promoting a gender indicator system, in line with SDG 5; a specific sustainable mobility initiative complying with SDGs 11 and 13; and a cross-sectoral project the Urbanization and Urban Integration Plan - which contributes to SDGs 11, 6, 7 and the rest of the SDGs to a lesser extent. Specific work is also being carried out to align the city council’s performance to SDG 16. Source: https://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/noticias/plan-estrategico-participativo-buenosaires-2035-pep-ba-2035.

Box 3

SDG alignment and localization in eThekwini-Durban In South Africa, the municipality of eThekwini-Durban has aligned its Integrated Development Plan (IDP) with the SDGs. For the last two fiscal years, eThekwini has incorporated the SDG targets and indicators into its local government responsibilities and municipal budget using a bottom-up approach as part of the city’s strategic approach to sustainability. The alignment has focused on four main pillars: human rights, people, the planet and prosperity. This exercise has allowed the city’s metropolitan area to introduce a system of benchmarking that permits more robust monitoring and a better reporting framework. In 2017, 66 out of 98 SDG indicators had been aligned with investment projects; in 2018, this number increased to 75. With support from local government affiliated organizations such as the eThekwini Municipal Institute of Learning (MILE), eThekwini Municipal Academy (EMA), and UCLG, the city has been able to improve its knowledge and understanding of the SDGs. By providing input into SDG Toolkit developments and assisting in the training of trainers on SDGs, the city is enabling advocacy, learning and institutionalization of the SDGs amongst its own officials as well as those from other cities. Source: Puvendra Akkiah, 'Unpacking the global agenda: implementation in eThekwini'. Unpublished powerpoint presentation (contribution to UCLG GOLD V).

jammers as well as the council's technical staff to work up innovative ideas to contribute to the five SDGs prioritized by the council (SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11).55 The Berlin Strategy/Urban Development Concept Berlin 2030 provides an inter-agency model for the long-term sustainable development of the capital and was developed following the participative process ‘Shaping the City Together’. This was open not only to the citizens of Berlin and Senate representatives but also more than 100 associations, local authorities and institutions from across the region of Berlin-Brandenburg.56 In other regions, eThekwini-Durban led the alignment of the 2030 Agenda with the metropolitan plan in South Africa (see Box 3).57 Involving metropolitan stakeholders is key as they bring knowledge, creativity, resources and technology, amongst other assets. Articulating mechanisms that foster public and private coresponsibility for a shared development is not easy, but the 2030 Agenda — and SDG 17.17 in particular — offers a unique opportunity to do so. Metropolitan areas such as Tshwane, San Francisco and Seoul have already oriented their sustainable development strategies together with their local partners — business and civil society — thanks to the Global Compact Cities Programme.58 Others cities, such as Paris, London, Lagos, Greater New York, São Paulo, Shanghai and Stuttgart have fostered PPPs to complement the government's resources and institutional capacities.59 In the same vein, relating local sustainable development strategies to the capabilities of knowledge-

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

The harbour of eThekwiniDurban, Kwazulu Natal, South Africa (photo: South African Tourism, bit. ly/2Mx7VD4).

based institutions can achieve more efficient and innovative public policies, as demonstrated by a number of good practices being implemented around the globe. For example, Los Angeles City Council’s partnership with Occidental College relies on the latter’s knowledge base, research, and data collection skills to accelerate implementation of the SDGs. The city presented its Voluntary Local Review (VLR) to the UN in July 2019.60 Its memorandum with the World Council on City Data (WCCD) will transform Los Angeles into one of eight local data hubs for sharing information related to the SDG indicators. In addition to involving citizens and key stakeholders in the policy-making process, other metropolitan areas have also shifted towards more transparent and accountable mechanisms. New York has linked transparency and accountability efforts to the SDGs by being the first metropolitan area in the world to report to the UN on the status of efforts to achieve the global benchmarks to address poverty, inequality and climate change by the year 2030.61 However, robust accountability requires data. Transposing the 2030 Agenda’s indicators into a metropolitan reality is a major challenge. Initial efforts have been developed in partnership with specialized institutions such as Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN),62 the WCCD,63 the research group Mistra Urban Futures64 and LSE Cities (see Box 4). In fact, the role played by several knowledge-based platforms in capitalizing on the initiatives launched by large

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

Box 4

Metropolitan indicators In 2019, Metropolis, in partnership with the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, commissioned the London School of Economics and Political Science to develop a set of 38 metropolitan indicators, based on the analysis of 69 metropolitan areas and a standard methodology to collect information from all members of the Metropolis network. The indicators are divided into six groups in accordance with Metropolis’ strategic vision: context and governance, economic development, social cohesion, gender equality, environmental sustainability and quality of life. The indicators, which include both new and existing metrics, are based on an exhaustive review of the academic and grey literature, as well as existing global datasets and data collection initiatives from international bodies/observatories; national statistic offices; local and regional authorities’ data; academic references, and NGOs and other associations. Source: https://indicators.metropolis.org.

cities and highlighting the obstacles and risks faced by them, is making a significant contribution to visualizing the potential of local governments in the achievement of the SDGs. Beyond these international approaches, efforts should be made to reinforce data and information systems owned by metropolises worldwide.

3.2 Addressing the main metropolitan challenges in line with the 2030 Agenda

Large cities and metropolitan areas are today the backdrop for some of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most significant global challenges, as discussed in the introduction. But, by and large, they have been proactive in the search for innovative solutions to these challenges affecting all spheres of sustainable development in a cross-sectoral manner and, whether directly or indirectly, have moved their territories closer to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda. However, cities and metropolitan areas face important contradictions in trying to foster a more inclusive and sustainable development. They promote growth, jobs and competitiveness whilst at the same time they are exposed to increasing urban inequalities and social fragmentation. Speculative investments, the introduction of new technologies in the market and the concentration of highly qualified employees with high rates of income have produced gentrified areas and resulted in the expulsion of part of the population towards the outskirts and marginalized areas, with a subsequent increase in social exclusion. Current economic models and growth clash with the urgent need to reduce the environmental footprint of large cities and metropolitan areas and transform production and consumption patterns so that they have a clear environmental impact. The absence of gender mainstreaming strategies and participatory mechanisms that include an array of diverse voices; the weakness of internal coordination mechanisms; deficient multilevel cooperation and a lack of resources, powers and capabilities all act

Nascent initiatives such as the sharing economy, control of the use of technologies and data can minimize the current negative externalities of uncontrolled growth and investment.

as an additional hindrance to change. However, metropolitan areas still strive to come up with new solutions that could be replicated in other territories. The following section gives examples of actions taken by metropolitan cities, adding to the examples described in the regional chapters of the GOLD V Report.

Relentless growth does not mean sustainability; new economic initiatives offer slow but steady progress As mentioned above, metropolitan areas are important generators of employment, wealth and productivity growth and are often the main economic engines of their country.65 However, there is an urgent need to foster a more inclusive and sustainable economic development that minimizes the current negative externalities of uncontrolled growth and investment such as territorial segregation and polarization, unemployment and poor labor conditions, and environmental degradation. Nascent initiatives such as the sharing economy, control of the use of technologies and data and programmes to support innovation and small enterprises could offer solutions to counterbalance such externalities. The 300 largest metropolitan economies in the world account for almost 50% of the global output.66 The GDP of some cities is higher than that of many countries in the world. However, different patterns can be observed across regions: in European OECD countries, capital metropolitan areas represent 48% of national GDP (with the exception of Paris, with a much higher contribution), while in Asia and Northern America this figure rises to 66%.67 Kinshasa represents 13% of the population of DRC but accounts for 85% of the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s GDP, while Metro Manila is 12% of the population of Philippines and represents 47% of the national GDP.68 These figures would likely grow if one took into account the extensive nodes that form megacities, urban corridors and city-regions characterized by unprecedented geographical extension and demographic volume.69

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Cities are responsible for the creation of a large share of new jobs (SDG 8): between 2006 and 2012, 87.7 million private sector jobs were created in the 750 largest cities in the world, accounting for 58% of all new private sector jobs generated in 140 countries.70 For example in the United States, metropolitan areas account for 84% of total employment and 88% of labour income. Production, services, capital and infrastructures, governments, companies, CSOs, universities and research centres are all located in these cities.71

New technologies have played a major role in improving and innovating territorial competitiveness and growth. Most research and innovation takes place in large cities, and technological clusters and new economic models flourish there. In India, it has been calculated that 49 metropolitan clusters will account for 77% of incremental GDP between 2012 and 2025.72 New technologies have also rendered cities smarter and more adapted to citizens’ needs (SDG 8.2), offering them public and private services and goods at an affordable price. Singapore has

Figure 2

GDP and employment in metropolitan areas as a % of the national values, 2016 South Korea (12) Japan (34) United States (93) Latvia (1) Australia (6) Estonia (1) Mexico (38) Great Britain (21) OECD (329) Greece (2) Germany (26) Chile (3) Ireland (1) Belgium (4) Netherlands (6) France (15) Canada (119) Austria (3) Spain (11) Sweden (3) Portugal (2) Hungary (1) Czech Republic (3) Poland (10) Denmark (1) Italy (13) Slovenia (1) Switzerland (3) Norway (1) Finland (1) Slovakia (1) Colombia (9)

GDP

Employment

Notes: Employment for the OECD includes 226 metropolitan areas. Source: OECD (2018), Metropolitan areas,, OECD Regional Statistics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00531-en.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

The financialization of urban economies has transformed the concept of ‘cities for living’ into ‘cities for investing’.

digitalized many services relating to citizens’ daily lives (registering children for school, obtaining tax incentives, reporting on a cardiac arrest of anyone within 500 feet), eliminating red tape and ensuring data privacy.73 In Chicago, the rodent population is being controlled by using predictive analytics to determine which trash dumpsters are most likely to be full and thus attract more rats.74 The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board’s real-time feedback on the status of the water supply allows the institution to make timely modifications to the water distribution patterns; reduce energy costs related to water transmission through more efficient pumping and delivery; and mitigate water loss due to theft, leakage and malfunction, potentially conserving as much as 40% of the water supply.75 Nevertheless, the economic model that increasingly dominates these global cities has wide and complex externalities for the economy, the environment and social cohesion, and this varies in both intensity and effect across regions. Globalization phenomena are

particularly concentrated in big cities, where the financialization of urban economies has transformed the concept of ‘cities for living’ into ‘cities for investing’. One manifestation of this is the rise in property rents and sales prices, often driven by growing investments by big private equity and hedge funds to control the real estate in most major cities.76 The reshaping of the urban landscapes in big cities (fragmentation of the urban space through privately financed ‘mega projects’, growing gaps in labour markets, commodification of public services) is contributing to urban segregation and polarization, pushing the traditional middle and working classes to the outermost peripheries or, in many developing countries, to expanding marginal neighbourhoods or slums. In many countries, young people, women and migrants are particularly affected by difficulties accessing jobs and decent shelters, which has led to the expansion of informal economies and settlements.77 In some cities, specific sectors such as tourism can also contribute to social polarization, pushing traditional residents out of the core town areas which results in precarious employment conditions, seasonal contracts, low added-value jobs, rising commodity prices and even social conflict,78 all of which are a far cry from the sustainable tourism promulgated by the 2030 Agenda (SDG 8.9).79 Moreover, new business models based on digital platforms using new technologies (such as Airbnb, Uber, Cabify, Amazon and Deliveroo,

Figure 3

Unemployment and economic prominence in metropolitan cities by region

Economic prominence

Unemployment Africa

Asia

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

North America

Source: Metropolitan indicators. Metropolis and LSE Cities, available online at https://lsecities.net/objects/research-projects/metropolitan-indicators.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

amongst others) create new opportunities, but also have a potentially negative impact on people’s privacy, traditional local small businesses and public transportation systems, as well as creating poor working conditions, encouraging tax evasion etc. Thus, understanding new technologies and the use of big data for public services as common goods that need to be protected is an important challenge currently facing many cities. The city of Barcelona, for example, has created the first municipal office that aims to ensure security, privacy and the ethical management of information through a more efficient, transparent and democratic system. It includes the Housing Observatory, which is in charge of tracking the housing market, gentrification, local residents and commerce that are forced to move out towards the suburbs etc.80 A global Coalition of Cities for Digital Rights has been created to ensure freedom of expression, protect privacy and personal information, promote transparency, accountability and non-discrimination of data and democratic processes in order to respect public opinion, diversity and inclusion, ensuring open and ethical standards in digital services.81 Alternative economic initiatives to develop cultural and creative industries and promote circular and shared/collaborative economies are flourishing. Territories act as laboratories for experimentation and citizens become active drivers of change. Examples highlighted by the C40 initiative include an online sharing market and other supporting initiatives in New York; new laws in Quezon regulating the use of plastic bags to help curb ocean plastics; Sydney is co-creating industry guidelines for circular office refurbishments, and cities such as Berlin, Paris, Tokyo and Toronto are embedding social, ecological and human rights criteria into public procurement processes.82 Different global networks of big cities, such as Shared Cities Alliance and the Global Social Economy Forum, are supporting shared economy approaches, linking their initiatives to the SDGs.83 Finding solutions to challenges is crucial if cities are to continue to offer decent work and generate wellbeing. Although these initiatives are usually at an early stage of development, they demonstrate the path towards a more sustainable, shared future. Metropolitan areas are also developing policies to support and assist small and mediumsized enterprises (SMEs) throughout the business life cycle, in addition to supporting citizens less likely to start up a business (youth, women etc.). For example Dakar relies on a business incubator for youth-led and women-led micro-enterprises to address this issue;85 a programme launched by Addis Ababa uses micro-credit loans and provides business training;86 Barcelona offers technical coaching, feasibility assessment, tailormade training and incubation programmes, with

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

Box 5

Transition to a circular economy in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area (a partnership between the provinces of Noord-Holland and Flevoland, a transport region and 32 municipalities) is accelerating the transition (through the Amsterdam Economic Board)84 to a circular economy by stimulating cooperation between business, government and knowledge institutes both in the region and internationally. The aim by 2025 is to become a leader in Europe in the area of smart solutions for the conservation of raw materials, so that valuable materials can be used more efficiently and for longer (SDGs 8, 9, 12). Additionally, by 2025 Amsterdam also aims to overcome existing challenges and become the most important place in Europe for data-driven innovation; offer citizens two additional healthy life years; have in place zero-emissions urban transport; and be the most successful region in Europe in terms of utilizing, retaining and attracting talent. Source: https://www.amsterdameconomicboard.com/en.

one particular strand targeting youth which has helped to foster a more diversified economy;87 and Brussels-Capital Region offers special support for the growth of green businesses in disadvantaged areas and encourages new and aspiring entrepreneurs.88 At the same time, in various cities in developing countries, the informal economy is the main source of employment and income generation, from street vendors and waste pickers to workers manufacturing goods at home. It accounts for between 25%–40% of GDP in developing economies in Asia and Africa, with a share in non-agricultural employment of between 2080%89 (around 80% in Abidjan, Dakar, Niamey and Bamako, 59% in Lima, 54% in Ho Chi Minh City, and 45% in Buenos Aires).90 Nevertheless, the informal economy poses major problems in terms of the promotion of inclusive cities, and metropolitan areas have begun to look for solutions. For example, the implementation of the delegated management of markets approach in the Commune I of Bamako in Mali led to increased tax collection and established a dynamic and fruitful partnership between informal traders and the municipality. The success

Territories act as laboratories for experimentation and citizens become active drivers of change.

Figure 4

Working age population by formal employment, informal employment and unemployment 100%

13 37

ity

oi in

a m

ar an

an A

ou nt

ot on

ĂŠ m Lo

ar ak D

ak o m Ba

Non active

Unemployment

Informal employment

Formal employment

Source: Informal Sector and Informal Employment: Overview of Data for 11 Cities in 10 Developing Countries, WIEGO.

of eThekwiniâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Informal Economy Policy gave rise to the South African National Informal Economy Forum, a strong signal that local municipalities can inďŹ&#x201A;uence national policies.91 Solutions that acknowledge and use the economic and social capital of the informal economy, the use of research and technology to diversify the economy and bring basic services and goods closer to the citizenship, and facilitating the social inclusion of women and youth through stable employment frameworks are still needed in metropolitan areas, which can take advantage of the economies of agglomeration.

Metropolitan areas as an important causal factor of environmental degradation, but also contributors to innovation and solutions The IPCC Special Report on 1.5 Degrees of Global Warming92 (October 2018) sent a strong message: either essential changes to energy, land, urban infrastructure (including aging transport and buildings) and industrial systems are made, or it will be impossible to tackle the

catastrophic climate change impacts of global warming such as sea-level rises, increases in natural disasters, worsening health, livelihood and food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth. Big cities are part of the problem in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy consumption, waste generation, water consumption and food waste. A number of metropolitan cities have been at the forefront of climate action and risk prevention. At the Global Climate Action Summit in September 2018, 27 major cities announced that their carbon emissions had already peaked, and 72 cities committed to carbon neutrality by 2050 through zero-emissions transport, the use of 100% renewable energy, net-zero carbon buildings, and zero-waste by 2030, while also pledging to implement these goals in an equitable and inclusive manner.93 Key cities and their networks have been pushing for change in global negotiations over the past two decades. However, as highlighted by IPCC, a much greater collective effort is needed. The Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, including all the mayoral LRG networks,

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

have gathered many examples from metropolitan areas such as Seoul,94 Tokyo,95 Bogotá,96 Hong Kong,97 Lima,98 London,99 New York,100 Mexico City,101 and Rio de Janeiro102 that have already developed initiatives to reduce the impact of climate change, whilst Istanbul,103 Jakarta,104 Karachi,105 Moscow,106 Sao Paulo,107 Lagos108 and Kinshasa109 have taken the first steps and committed to it. In their resilience strategies, many metropolitan cities have adopted a more integrated approach.111 Not only are they focused on mitigating the effects of natural disasters and climate change, but they also tackle food security, social inclusion, economic revitalization, urban brownfield rehabilitation, the fight against poverty, inequalities and exclusion.112 Boston’s first ever Resilience Strategy focuses particularly on confronting racial divisions, bias, and other issues that cause inequity;113 Mexico City builds water resilience as well as community resilience through citizen participation, strategic communication, and education;114 and Bangkok’s strategy balances environmental resilience with improving citizens’ quality of life and the development of a strong competitive economy.115 Dakar’s 2017 Resilience Strategy, the first to be adopted in Africa with the support of 100 Resilient Cities, relies on strong cooperation with the citizenship and local stakeholders to build resilience in the face of shocks and stresses and to improve the well-being of vulnerable people.116 Work in Dar es Salaam has shown that investing in resilient infrastructure, with proper servicing of informal

Box 6

Barcelona: measures to fight climate change The Barcelona Metropolitan Area has taken several measures in line with the SDGs, including working for the improvement of air quality in its territory. The metropolitan programme of measures introduced on tackle environmental pollution includes the creation of low-emission areas in pollution episodes and the promotion of sustainable mobility (bicycles, electric vehicles etc.) which directly contribute to SDG 13. The new Urban Planning Master Plan, measures on spatial planning, improvement of the rivers Llobregat and Besòs, and the coastline strategy also contribute to SDGs 15 and 17. The Barcelona Metropolitan Area is also in charge of waste management (SDG 12) and water supply and sanitation (SDG 6), the promotion of renewable energies through the establishment of a network of stations to charge electric cars with solar power and the installation of photovoltaic rooves in public buildings (SDG 7). Source: Area Metropolitana de Barcelona, Programa Metropolità de Mesures contra la Contaminació Atmosfèrica, Memòria.110

settlements and the introduction of regulatory reforms (for instance on waste dumping), may prove more beneficial in the long term than the use of palliative measures during outbreaks.117 Sustainable transport is another area where the metropolitan impact on the environment is

The Workshop on SDG localization tools and resources held by the Barcelona Provincial Council to raise awareness among staffers of its own departments (photo: © UCLG Learning).

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

considerable. Metropolitan areas, particularly in the Global North, have long been developing intermodal transportation and integrated public transport systems that combine several modalities and transit to renewable energies: bus, metro, tramway, rail, soft mobility (i.e. bicycles). Copenhagen, for example, has the ambition to be

Box 7

Lagos Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System To address the traffic congestion in Lagos, the national government established the Lagos Metropolitan Transport Authority (LMTA)128 in 2002. It became fully operational in 2008. The LMTA established the Lagos BRT Lite system, Africa’s first bus rapid transit scheme. The project was funded by the World Bank, Lagos state government, and private sector operators. This is a high capacity bus service which runs in dedicated lanes. The system comprises 22 km of bus lanes with 220 buses which run on a 16-hour service, transporting over 200,000 people daily. In its initial six months of operation, the service carried over 29 million people, journey time was reduced by an average of 25 minutes and fares were reduced to less than half of what passengers had been paying to private operators. CO2 and GHG emissions have been reduced by 13% and 20% respectively. The experience of Lagos shows that improvements made in the field of sustainable transport have an impact beyond the provision of basic services (crucial for the population and especially for those living on the outskirts of big cities), affecting other areas such as economic development (productivity improvements and job creation). Source: https://lamata.lagosstate.gov.ng/.

Box 8

Energy efficiency in Beijing’s buildings Beijing is promoting the adoption of ultra-low energy new building constructions, utilizing innovative design standards and technologies to dramatically improve energy performance. The city aims to construct 300,000 m2 of ultra-low energy demonstration building projects by the end of 2020; refine ultra-low energy building standards and guidance; provide training to support coordinated development across the wider Beijing-Tianjin Hebei Region; enhance and implement financial incentive policies; and develop future policy recommendations and strategy based on international experience. Source: https://www.c40.org/researches/constructing-a-newlow-carbon-future-china.

carbon neutral by 2025 and has taken important action in the field of transport by creating corridors for designated types of mobility such as cyclists (cycling accounts for 41% of all trips to work), buses and cars.118 Milan is continually improving the new technologies applied to the city’s successful bike and car sharing initiatives.119 In the Global South, particularly in Africa, formal transport systems are unable to compete in terms of cost and speed with (often unsafe) private sector and informal sector transport initiatives. However, good practice can be found in the form of better public transport (e.g. Bus Rapid Transit systems, developed in Bogotá120 but which have spread to many other cities such as Jakarta121 and Istanbul122 amongst others) and the use of more sustainable public transport modes (conversion of buses to biogas in Johannesburg,123 investment in the metro lines in Hanoi,124 promotion of bike lanes and bike sharing systems in Buenos Aires125 and Chennai,126 and electric urban cleaning vehicles in Rio de Janeiro).127 In Brazil, through the Restructuring Plan for Public Transport in the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte, the city opted to establish an intermodal and integrated urban transport system that combines buses, underground trains and an interneighbourhood system with direct, circular and peripheral lines. As prime energy consumers, metropolitan areas around the world have developed plans and projects to reduce energy consumption in buildings and infrastructures. In the Tokyo Green Building Programme, for example, buildings are rated on environmental performance and, since 2002, this has contributed to improved public health and increased the economic viability of environmentally-friendly design by altering the way buildings are valued.129 Energy emissions reductions have also been a priority for Vancouver130 and Chicago.131 In Hanoi, the council has fostered the conversion of beehive stoves into advanced clean cook stoves that contribute to GHG reductions by burning biomass instead of fossil fuels.132 Water (SDG 6) is an essential and scarce resource whose provision is considered a human right. The ‘water footprint’ of cities – the area covered by their water sources – accounts for 41% of the earth’s land surface. Water is crucial for metropolises, not just for human consumption but also for the functioning of the economy, which leaves metropolitan cities in a difficult position with regards to river basins and the environment as a whole. Policies oriented towards rationalizing water consumption and reutilization, especially for industrial or ornamental uses, are vital since water supply is a growing concern in many metropolitan cities. While cities such as Amsterdam, Dubai, London and Los Angeles ensure 100% service provision to the population, in Johannesburg only 65% of the population have a potable water supply service. Bangalore, Beijing, Cairo, Cape Town, Chennai, Jakarta, Melbourne, Mexico and Sao Paulo are

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Figure 5

Percentage of the city’s wastewater that has received no treatment Cities that have a wastewater treatment service for their population:

Cities with partial (or no) wastewater treatment services for their population

Haiphong Minna

Ammam

Riyadh

Amsterdam Bogotá

Barcelona Boston

Buenos Aires

Brisbane Dubai

Jamshedpur

Eindhoven Aalter

Gdynia Greater Melbourne

Guadalajara

Heerlen Koprivnica

Shanghai

London Los Angeles

León

Makati

Zagreb

Makkah Oakville

Surat

Porto

Saint-Augustinde-Desmaures

Rotterdam

Valencia

Shawinigan

Toronto

Surrey

San Diego Sintra Taipei

Cambridge

Vaughan 0

100

Zwolle

Source: WCCD City Data for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals report 2017.

examples of cities affected by water supply problems. With respect to sanitation, according to the WCCD, whilst metropolitan areas such as Dubai, Greater Melbourne, London, Taipei and Toronto have populations with 100% access to an improved sanitation source, high percentages of non-treated wastewater are found in Riyadh (around 90%), Bogotá and Buenos Aires (around 60%, see Figure 5). Effective waste treatment (SDG 12.5) is also crucial for the environment and can contribute significantly to energy generation, ensuring energy security, reducing environmental pollution, and contributing to efficient land use and green sustainable economic development. This can be seen in the action taken by Hanoi and Quezon City with regards to their largest landfill,133 while Istanbul’s circular design approach to waste management allows the city to produce electricity and compost from different waste streams, as well as divert excess heat to greenhouses to ensure

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

greater productivity.134 Johannesburg has tackled waste management in a cross-sectoral manner involving informal waste pickers in the value chain.135 Metropolitan areas continue to be at the forefront of climate action through sustainable practices in transport, food security, buildings and infrastructures and the provision of basic services (water, sanitation, waste management, energy) and climate-resilient strategies foster mitigation and adaptation in line with poverty eradication and the reduction of inequalities. However, overcoming current constraints (legal and regulatory barriers, information asymmetries, insufficient expertise, lack of resources and access to borrowing, and inadequate stakeholder coordination,136 especially when no clear internal mechanisms exist) is absolutely essential if metropolitan areas are to continue to lead the way in more sustainable, environmentally friendly actions.

Demonstration on the International Day of Working Women, Santiago de Chile (photo: Fran[zi]s[ko]Vicencio, t.ly/PB6g8)-

Persisting inequalities but growing strategies for social inclusion, equity and coexistence Metropolitan areas around the world are promoting important policies and initiatives to foster social inclusion, equity and coexistence within their territories. However, they still have significant poverty rates and inequalities (in OECD countries, metropolitan income inequality is 3.3% higher than the national average).137 The level of metropolitan income segregation varies hugely between countries: in South African and Brazilian metropolitan areas it is much more evident than in New Zealand or Denmark,138 but at the same time large metropolitan areas such as Atlanta, New Orleans, Washington DC, Miami and New York experience similar levels of inequality to developing cities such as Abidjan, Nairobi, Buenos Aires and Santiago, all with Gini coefficients of around 0.50.139 Exclusion and inequalities are both the cause and the result of metropolitan areas being scattered and fragmented. While centres attract business headquarters, talent and knowledge, they also expel middle class and low-income groups to the outskirts and poorer neighbourhoods.140

Indeed, as metropolitan areas continue to grow at a dizzying rate, particularly in Africa and Asia, the most vulnerable citizens cannot afford decent houses and have no alternative but to move to crowded slums and informal settlements. Figures for the percentage of the population living in slums is around 14% in Johannesburg, 10% in Amman and Buenos Aires, and over 5% in Bogotรก.141 The 2030 Agenda urgently calls for upgrading of slums through integral actions to ensure decent housing and access to services. It is important that the slum upgrading process is carried out with the involvement of the people that live there and other stakeholders (see Box 9) and that there is a move away from forced evictions with no provision for alternative accommodation (as occurred in Badia East within the framework of the Lagos Metropolitan Development and Governance Project).142 Articulating citizen participation mechanisms that include the most vulnerable groups is strongly in line with the 2030 Agenda. In this regard, blockchain has proved a powerful tool in the process: in Moscow, a blockchainbased platform allows citizens to make decisions

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

on how urban spaces can be improved; and in Buenos Aires, the Waba project has developed an application that encourages the social, civic and economic integration of the inhabitants of irregular settlements through establishing communities that self-manage the governance of their own alternative currencies in their local markets.143 Ensuring access to adequate and affordable housing (SDG 11) is one of the most significant challenges for metropolitan areas in all regions. As outlined in previous sub-sections, market deregulation and skyrocketing prices of land and housing are some of the issues that cities need to address. Many metropolises have therefore endorsed the declaration Cities for Adequate Housing, launched by Barcelona and UCLG and which is a call to acknowledge housing as a right rather than a commodity. In the declaration, the cities of Lisbon, eThekwini, Mexico City, Montevideo, Taipei, Berlin and Montreal and the metropolitan bodies of Barcelona, Greater Manchester and Seoul have committed to support the right to housing in order to implement SDG 11 which commits to making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.145 To strengthen the management of metropolitan areas, big cities need to adopt strategic and integral planning approaches to better articulate service provision, urban development and land management (SDG 11.3) to ensure economic development and social inclusion. This is already being implemented in cities such as Auckland, Barcelona, Lima, New York, Riyadh, Shanghai and Tokyo, for example.147 In other cases, integral planning has been carried out in specific sectors, taking into account the needs and priorities of the whole metropolitan area, for example in Montreal with the Namur-de la Savanne sector;148 Berlin’s District Waterkant which aims to build new housing units (with essential services such as kindergartens, pharmacies, playgrounds etc.) and develop specific traffic and mobility measures;149 Brussels’ conversion of a former army barrack (U square) into an inclusive district comprising families and students which combines efficiency, heritage, circular economy, sustainable development and knowledge;150 and Sydney’s Green Square, which has undergone a large-scale transformation into a place with a minimal environmental footprint and a vibrant and well-connected community enjoying sustainable facilities, transport networks, public spaces, high-quality housing, commerce, services and jobs.151 In developing countries, this strategic approach is still limited. Almost all metropolitan areas are hosting an increasing number of migrants, whether internal or international. Migrants are one of the most vulnerable groups referred to in the 2030 Agenda, with women being particularly vulnerable because

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

The quality of life for migrants is strongly dependent on local policies. Metropolitan areas can facilitate access to housing, jobs, education and health.

Box 9

Planning development in Eastern Africa: Mukuru’s Special Planning Area Significant efforts have been made in Nairobi’s slum upgrading programmes, which differ both in size and scale.144 In Soweto (Kibera), the government built around 4,000 housing units to be sold at subsidized rates, but many residents cannot even afford such subsidized prices. In the other in Mukuru in the east of Nairobi, the government created a Special Planning Area with significant involvement of the social movement Muungano wa Wanavijiji, which has long collected data through member savings groups and lobbied for investment in basic services. The upgrading process will involve a number of thematic consortiums covering water, sanitation and energy; finance; land and institutional arrangements; health services; education, youth and culture; environment and natural resources; housing, infrastructure and commerce; and community organization, coordination and communication. Source: https://wrirosscities.org/sites/default/files/WRR_Case-Study_Kampala_final.pdf; https://www.iied.org/special-approach-slum-upgrading-special-planning-area-mukuru-nairobi.

Box 10

eThekwini poverty package The South African city of eThekwini146 has a comprehensive package of measures for poor and vulnerable people, including indigenous communities (SDGs 1, 6, 10, 11). With regard to basic services, rates are not levied on properties valued under a certain amount, with preferential treatment for pensioners and social grant recipients; and the use of water, sanitation, electricity and waste is free up to specific limits. With respect to housing, a new programme will deliver over 150,000 housing units to poor people free of charge over a tenyear period. To improve the quality of life in informal settlements and transit camps, short-term emergency/interim services have been provided in the form of washing blocks, refuse removal, storm water ditching, fire breaks, etc. In addition, innovative new housing forms and urban design solutions are being implemented with the aim of promoting densification, social cohesion, and a more sustainable urban form. Source: http://www.durban.gov.za/City_Services/Community_Participation/Pages/PovertyAlleviation-Programme.aspx.

their quality of life is strongly dependent on local policies. Cities are important for guaranteeing migrant social integration and facilitating access to housing, jobs, education and health. However, the increase in migrant numbers is not confined to metropolitan areas but also applies to smaller cities.152 Chengdu has fostered a platform for internal migrants to express their concerns at the community level, including about issues such as public resource allocation.153 The greater Amman municipality is developing policies to reduce socio-cultural tensions and spatial segregation between host and refugee communities living in the the Badr Nazzai district in the south of the city.154 In order to promote social inclusion, combat poverty and foster employment, metropolitan areas also need to deal with security matters (SDG 11.7), particularly in Latin America but also in South Africa and in the United States. According to the annual report on the 50 most dangerous cities, 43 of them are to be found in Latin America, four in the United States and three in South Africa.155 In Africa, civil unrest, political instability and terrorism are a source of concern in metropolises such as Addis Ababa, Johannesburg and Nairobi,156 while in Latin America insecurity revolves around drug trafficking-related crimes, youth gangs and institutionalized violence amongst other things.157 In order to combat insecurity, many cities have successfully developed strategies through participatory approaches (e.g. Medellin and Seoul), targeting troubled neighbourhoods, involving communities, schools, the police and district sectors, and securing public spaces through policies for vulnerable groups such as youth, women and the elderly.158 Since the Convention on the Elimination of All

Box 11

The Goes neighbourhood in Montevideo Once a deprived neighbourhood in Montevideo, Goes has undergone comprehensive socio-urban revitalization, transforming it into a welcoming, cohesive and touristic place. The integral regeneration of the neighbourhood has brought with it new public open spaces, greater housing choice, increased social integration and new economic opportunities. At the outset, participative processes were employed which allowed for the creation of a new governance model that underlines the role of local identity and the joint management of public facilities between the council and the community, such as the Centro Cultural Terminal Goes. Source: http://culturalgoes.montevideo.gub.uy/centro-cultural-terminal-goes/gestion.

Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) adopted in 1979 and the Convention of Belém do Pará (1994), global agendas have ratified the need to monitor, prevent and punish violence against women, acknowledging it as a public issue that erodes female autonomy.159 Women’s bodies are the starting point for domination and subjugation, which is then replicated at home, in the street, in neighbourhoods, municipalities and the metropolitan area as a whole. Besides robberies, assaults and the illegitimate use of force by criminals, women are exposed to attacks, verbal harassment, sexual harassment and abuse, rape and even murder, simply by virtue of being women. While this violence is often confined to their homes, it also occurs in the public space: squares, parks, in the street and on public transport. Women are even more vulnerable, then, if the city and the territory are not planned in a way that acknowledges these challenges and uses public spaces and infrastructure to combat this phenomenon. Women today are more afraid to travel around the city than men: this fear curbs their freedom, limits their rightful enjoyment and ownership of public spaces and public life, and hinders their development as workers, citizens and active participants, free to benefit from all the opportunities provided by the metropolitan environment.160 There have been many initiatives in the world’s metropolitan areas to reduce violence against women, protect their rights and empower them to participate in public life. Mainstreaming a gender-specific approach in public policies and actions is paramount to achieving equal rights. In this respect, actions have been implemented in the field of urban spaces (e.g. New Delhi’s free SafetiPin app with interactive maps of places where women feel unsafe, including an alarm service — now also available in Bangalore, Bogotá and Jakarta amongst other cities);161 public transportation (Quito’s ‘Down with Harassment’ project to stop harassment on public transport, implemented in partnership with the UN Women’s Global Flagship Initiative Safe Cities and Safe Public Spaces,162 and Toronto’s buses stopping at the request of women between 9pm and 5am to shorten walking distance);163 and awareness raising (more than 100 youth agents of change in Cairo are leading transformative activities in schools and other settings to promote respectful gender relationships, gender equality, and safety in public spaces, and similar actions have been implemented in Seoul, Montreal and Barcelona).164 Metropolitan areas should also take into account other vulnerable groups such as disabled people, who account for 15% of the world’s population. Big cities are amongst the most difficult to navigate for the blind, deaf and physically disabled, and there are rising levels of mental illness in this space.165 Metropolises are implementing a

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

range of policies to foster inclusion, for example micro gardening in Dakar for vulnerable people including the disabled, women, the elderly, youth and children,166 and involving them in participative and inclusive strategic planning, for example, as part of the Guadalajara Future Metropolitan Development Programme.167 As the metropolitan population ages (57% of people aged 60 years and older are urban and the total number of people over 60 is set to double by 2050),168 taking the elderly into consideration has become crucial for developing balanced, sustainable policies that tackle, amongst other things, the incidence of elderly poverty, working in low-wage work (as in Singapore),169 the feeling of loneliness (35% of people over 75 in Stockholm describe themselves as lonely),170 adaptation of housing and public spaces, and reform of the health and care system including the gap between public and private. Metropolitan areas are responding to these challenges by bringing older people and students together through cohabitation schemes (Milan);171 fostering volunteering programmes, offering older job seekers access to health, skills and employability support, promoting extra care apartments for older people alongside a library and health services, teaching digital skills in an informal environment (Greater Manchester),172 and campaigning to change people’s perceptions

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

of older people in order to reduce prejudice and discrimination (Guadalajara).173 Promoting people’s values, a sense of identity and accessible culture (not just the heritage dimension but also creativity, diversity and cultural participation in the broadest sense of SDG 11.4)174 will be key to rehumanizing metropolitan areas and making them more resilient, inclusive and participative. Incorporating the 2030 Agenda into policies and practices and using it to tackle the challenges discussed above will highlight the ways in which different metropolitan areas can contribute to sustainable development and unlock their full potential by implementing innovative and efficient solutions. However, institutional fragmentation in many metropolitan areas presents a major obstacle to citizens accessing their full rights and to the universalization of basic services (transport, housing, water, sanitation, etc.), particularly for women and the most vulnerable groups (the poor, youth, disabled people, the elderly and migrants) and those who live on the periphery, whether territorial or social. There is still much to be done to create legal and institutional enabling environments, as well as new governance mechanisms, that allow for the growth in high quality metropolitan public policies.

Mural art for the second edition of the Wall Art Festival in Grigny, a city part of the Greater Paris metropolitan area (photo: © Amanda Fléty Martínez).

04. Conclusions and policy recommendations: the state of SDG localization in the Metropolitan Areas

This publication has shown that metropolitan cities have been among the most active in integrating the 2030 Agenda and other related agendas into their development strategies, plans and policies. Frontrunner cities have deployed integrated development strategies as well as highly innovative solutions to address their most pressing problems. Managing the policy-making process at metropolitan level through integrated and inclusive approaches, ensuring adequate coordination between the different spheres of government and involving citizens as well as metropolitan stakeholders are all needed to implement the 2030 Agenda in an effective manner, in addition to ensuring transparency and accountability in order to bring public policies closer to citizens, especially the most vulnerable. In this regard, the metropolitan model is critical. This is a strategy that has clearly been adopted by some metropolitan areas and which, ideally, should be followed by others. Globally, metropolitan areas are recognized as engines of growth, functioning as drivers of national and even international economies, leading investment and competitiveness. However, metropolitan areas are also home to major contradictions: rising levels of wealth coupled with problems of exclusion; economic

growth but with precarious labour conditions and extended informalization in the cities of the Global South; hopes for a better quality of life but deterioration in health as a consequence of pollution, environmental degradation and natural resource depletion. Most metropolitan cities face a pressing need to foster new patterns of economic and social development to control their growth and minimize the negative externalities created by current unsustainable patterns of development. In July 2018, mayors of metropolitan cities from different regions who were concerned about the global housing crisis that has hit major urban areas and advocating for better cities and respect of the rights to the city for all, requested at the UN more legal and fiscal powers to tackle speculation and guarantee the social function of the city; more funds to invest in public housing and neighbourhoods; the co-production with communities of alternative solutions; better planning to contribute to the social, economic and environmental sustainability of the urban fabric; and enhanced cooperation between cities to boost long-term strategies on a metropolitan scale.175 At the same time metropolitan governments around the world are leading the fight against climate change, strengthening the resiliency of cities as demonstrated by major cities in the Global Climate Action Summit in September 2018, investing in urban de-carbonization, fostering the transition to renewable energies, greening public

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

buildings and services, promoting circular and sharing economies, supporting innovation and better control of the use of technologies and data — all with the aim of tackling challenging externalities. Key cities play a major role in large fora such as the yearly COP conferences, where they are active participants. However, as highlighted by the IPCC, a much greater collective effort at all levels is needed to stop climate change. Capitalizing on the innovation and solutions provided by metropolitan areas to tackle the challenges discussed above is crucial. It will build gateways to share knowledge and experiences and help improve public policies. However, current governance models are undermining the potential of metropolitan areas to provide effective solutions to the problems they are facing. Unlocking the transformative potential of the 2030 Agenda should serve to improve the policy-making process at the metropolitan level. The following recommendations are based on the analysis of previous pages, on the Montreal Declaration on Metropolitan Areas for Habitat III (October 2015) and the key messages of GOLD IV: Metropolitan governance systems are, in fact, being reformed and upgraded around the world. New, more inclusive governance models are vital for dealing with the increasing complexity of metropolitan areas. As stressed in previous pages, although there is no ‘onesize-fits-all’, some basic principles should be acknowledged to bolster collaborative and effective metropolitan governance: local democracy as the basis of the legitimacy of metropolitan institutions, empowered local governments (effective decentralization), multilevel cooperation based on the respect of the subsidiarity principles, enhanced genderaware participatory mechanisms, and adequate resources and financing instruments. The gender perspective must also be integrated into the design, execution and evaluation of public policies. A fair metropolitan governance system should encourage polycentric and balanced development to ensure inclusion of the full metropolitan region, core and peripheral cities. Metropolitan spaces should also take into account the impact that they may have not only on peripheral cities, but also the surrounding territories, their hinterland or territorial approaches at a larger, national level. In light of both the 2030 Agenda and the New Urban Agenda, it is essential to redefine these relationships and their interdependence within a systemic territorial and urban approach. A thorough rethinking of traditional financing approaches is needed to empower metropolitan authorities in the context of widespread financialization and commodification of urban public goods and property markets.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

Metropolitan finance authorities need adequate powers to mobilize local resources, receive sufficient transfers and be able to access borrowing on national and international markets to invest in major infrastructures and services and to respond to social inclusion and climate change challenges. This would allow metropolitan areas to reconcile financial constraints with long-term sustainable development and counterbalance the growing wealth inequalities both between and within cities. To better respond to the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement on climate change and other related agendas, metropolitan areas should strengthen their capacity to develop integrated and participatory strategic plans aligned with SDG targets that link the different dimensions of urban sustainable development to build inclusive, resilient and safer cities. Metropolitan governments should move from fragmented sector-specific decision-making to a strategic planning approach for the whole metropolitan area that takes into account the systemic tensions between inclusion, environmental policies, economic development and resilience. They should strengthen collaboration within metropolitan areas, as well as with their periurban areas and hinterlands, to build stronger synergies, relieve urbanization pressures and reduce environmental impacts. As requested by the New Urban Agenda, inclusive urban planning should pursue universal access to basic services and adequate housing, compactness, multi-functionality and socially-mixed neighbourhoods with a good quality of life, shorter travelling distances and improved public transport, accessible and safer public spaces, fairer access to basic services and infrastructures, and cultural amenities for all. In developing countries, informal settlements must be recognized and integrated into the urban fabric, with adequate policies for land tenure recognition and slum upgrading. Cultural policies (including the protection of heritage, diversity and creativity) should also act as a lever for flourishing metropolitan areas. The achievement of the global agendas needs the establishment of stronger partnerships for the co-production of the city. To enhance and empower citizen participation, metropolitan leaders should combine the support of a well-organized civil society with autonomous spaces and diversified mechanisms to participate in local decision-making, acknowledging the protection of human rights as defined by the UN — the right to access basic services, gender equality, adequate shelter and secure tenure, social protection, respect for migrants, refugees, minorities, communities safe from violence, and defence of digital rights — and putting the principles of the ‘Right to the city’ at the heart of the urban agenda.

To strengthen the capacity of co-production through participative planning, reporting and monitoring, local governments should strengthen metropolitan systems to gather and process data with indicators aligned to those of the SDGs. Different levels of government, as well as universities, knowledge centres, CSOs and the private sector should all contribute to this effort. Despite the importance of their role and the challenges they face, metropolitan areas enjoy limited political recognition. The metropolitan dimension appears diluted or alluded to only briefly in most of the global agendas i.e. the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Addis Ababa Action Plan. The 2030 Agenda could serve as leverage, allowing the environment in which metropolitan areas operate to foster the metropolitan dimension of the different

political agendas. Metropolitan leaders must redouble their efforts to engage on the global stage, particularly in the reporting process to the UN through the Voluntary National Reviews and, where possible, develop Voluntary Local Reviews to make their voices heard. They need to enhance cooperation and promote knowledgesharing between themselves and with networks of peripheral cities in order to foster innovation and encourage positive action. The current patterns of development embedded in our aspiration for continuous growth are responsible for some of the most critical challenges faced by metropolitan cities worldwide. Many metropolitan cities lack the resources and the full competences to address the very complex challenges they face. Beyond the current ad hoc innovative solutions that cities

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

are developing to respond to these challenges, the transition towards a more sustainable development model will require a redefinition of the prevailing economic and social patterns of development so that they are compatible with the limits of our planet. Metropolitan cities should lead a global dialogue to rethink these patterns of development and establish shared action plans with concrete measures to move towards a more sustainable and inclusive development that aligns with the 2030 Agenda.

Streets of Shenzhen, China (photo: tomislav domes, https://bit.ly/3eFsivj).

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

05. Policy recommendations at the global level

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Our roadmap to accelerate the achievement of the 2030 Agenda through the localization of the SDGs

The transformation that needs to be brought about to achieve the global agendas will only occur if our development model responds to the dreams and expectations of communities, and if there is collective responsibility to make the necessary adjustments and sacrifices to achieve more equitable, fair and sustainable societies. The global agendas must either be local or they simply will not be. The constituency of local and regional governments (LRGs) has a critical role to play to catalyse change and provide the kind of service delivery that will deliver inclusion, efficient use of resources and sustainability. This LRG constituency shares the sense of urgency to scaleup and accelerate such a transformation. The findings of the GOLD V Report have inspired policy recommendations that build upon the ‘Bogota Commitment and Action Agenda’,

adopted by the World Organization of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) in 2016, as well as the annual reports of the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments (GTF) to the UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) since 2017. In a context of increasing inequalities, endangerment of ecosystems and tensions that are threatening human solidarity, the GOLD V Report presents the efforts of a key constituency that serves communities, responding to their needs and hopes. It is a positive message about the impact that well-resourced localization can have in a new vision for the sustainability of our planet. The recommendations are addressed to local and regional leaders and their organizations, to our partners, national governments, international organizations, civil society and social actors, as well as to the business sector.

Local and regional governments lead the way towards a more equal and sustainable world In the globalized urbanization era, the actions of cities and LRGs are integral to the global agendas: it is at the local level that the interrelationship between the different agendas most clearly manifests itself. With regard to the global agendas, getting the 2030 Agenda commitments right necessitates the full implementation of the principles of the New Urban Agenda and

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, that in turn are fundamental to changing the patterns of production and consumption as the basic premise of the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. The following recommendations situate the LRGs as drivers of an alternative territorial approach to local development (TALD).

Actions at local and regional levels Galvanize forces for the localization of the 2030 Agenda in our cities and territories LRGs and their global and regional organizations have pioneered the localization of the SDGs. To make the ‘quantum leap’ currently needed they must: • Adopt the SDGs as a reference framework for LRGs' policies, programming, planning and budgets, ensuring a coherent and integrated approach — mindful of the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Sendai Framework and empowered by the principles of the New Urban Agenda. • Embolden ambitions by fostering greater ownership of the communities and attain real local buy-in of policies. Co-creation with other local stakeholders will be critical in the definition, implementation and assessment of the localization process. • Share and learn: participate in LRG networks and invest in peer-to-peer knowledge-sharing, practice exchange and training. Fostering and accessing technical assistance and decentralized cooperation to promote the localization of the SDGs will be key. • Link with science: serve as catalyser to foster partnerships with research institutions and promote ‘labs’ to experiment with innovative ways to implement, review and follow-up the localization process.

Protect the commons, human rights and culture as foundations of peace The preservation of the global commons (biodiversity, land, atmosphere, oceans) that determine the survival of all living beings, as well as the protection of peace, cultural diversity and human rights, require strong local action and LRGs’ commitment to:

• Foster an ecological and systemic relationship between people and nature. LRGs must support cohesion of the ‘urban-rural continuum’ and strengthen the interconnected policies that halt deforestation and desertification; effectively manage the current network of protected areas, including terrestrial, freshwater (both surface and ground) and marine areas; and improve human wellbeing, particularly of indigenous populations and communities whose livelihoods depend on forests, water and soil conservation and climate change mitigation. • Achieve climate neutrality in cities and territories, taking into account the life-long cycle of GHG emissions to proactively tackle the climate emergency. Decoupling socio-economic development from environmental degradation calls for well-planned urban development and land management, responsible and fair management of natural resources and waste, and ensuring the reduction of inequalities. It implies divesting from fossil fuels to free up resources. These can in turn be invested to accelerate scaling-up the protection of most vulnerable populations and ecosystems, and offsetting any emissions that cannot be further reduced or avoided. • Contribute to holding global warming to 1.5ºC by the end of the 21st century, through the collective definition of TerritoriallyDetermined Contributions (TDCs) feeding into the Nationally-Determined Contributions (NDCs) for the implementation of the provisions of the Paris Agreement. Support the post-2020 negotiation of the global biodiversity framework, as well as the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. • Promote peace and city diplomacy by tackling the roots of local violence, educating for its eradication and to create a mindset that makes it possible to build a culture of dialogue in cities and territories. Foster cities and territories as spaces for co-existence and peace through measures that fight interpersonal violence, extremism, racism, xenophobia, gender-based violence and other forms of intolerance, and introduce measures to integrate all citizens. • Promote culture as the fourth pillar of development and as a core component of local identity, a strand of global solidarity, and a vector for peace and human rights. Foster locally relevant cultural policies and programmes on memory, heritage, creativity, diversity and knowledge, as intrinsic to local sustainable development.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Put human rights and the ‘Right to the City’ at the core of the local agendas – strengthen inclusive local policies to ‘leave no one behind’ Given its multiple dimensions, the eradication of extreme poverty is inextricably linked to the protection of human rights. LRGs should put the ‘Right to the City’ at the centre of urban and territorial governance to ensure universal access to quality basic services, nutritious food, health and education, economic opportunities, access to adequate housing and disaster risk prevention for the most vulnerable. These are essential components of territorialized propoor policies. Partnerships with communities and community-based organisations are instrumental in creating alternative solutions, particularly where public services are scarce. LRGs should commit to: • Remove any discriminatory legal and social policy at the local level to ensure equal opportunities for all, particularly for women, indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities, the LGBTQIA+ populations, the elderly, the youth, and people with mental and physical disabilities. Facilitate migrants' and refugees' access to rights and services, regardless of their status. • Tackle gender-based discrimination and violence with tailored policies, budgets and legal reforms. LRGs can raise awareness and reinforce education on the changing conception of gender roles. Women must be equally represented and granted equal powers in decision-making forums. It is necessary to enact gender-sensitive policies in territories that promote equal access to health and education and acknowledge the role of women in the domestic and informal economy. Gender equality has a multiplier effect in advancing sustainable development, environmental protection and social justice. • Support the fulfilment of the right to adequate housing for all, which includes affordability, legal security of tenure, habitability, accessibility and cultural adequacy standards, and must be understood within the framework of the ‘Right to the City’. Promote inclusionary housing policies and slum upgrading initiatives that are undertaken in partnership with the communities and seek to avoid forced evictions. • Promote the Principles of Open Government as a tool for the improvement of policy ownership and accountability. Create spaces and mechanisms that favour citizen participation

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

in local decision-making, access to information and communities’ ownership of the 2030 Agenda and other global agendas.

Harness the co-creation of cities and territories through sustainable participative urban and land planning Planning needs to be the result of the political, economic and social systems within which it is embedded. Deep reforms on planning regulations and frameworks are a critical part of SDG localization and the New Urban Agenda. This includes the need to produce qualified professional planners and researchers. By renewing participatory urban and spatial planning, LRGs should: • Adopt an integrated planning approach, as reflected in the New Urban Agenda, to strengthen the inclusive dimension of cities, climate adaptation and mitigation and disaster risk prevention strategies, and multiply the benefits of interlinkages between urban and territorial areas. Inclusive and participatory planning are key levers for the co-creation of sustainable and inclusive cities and territories. • Build capacities and retain local expertise to address rapid urbanization with adapted approaches to reduce urban sprawl and avoid costlier retrofitting. Most urgent actions are needed in regions where rapid urban growth will be concentrated (Sub-Saharan Africa and South and South-East Asia). • Scale-up efforts to build urban resilience and disaster risk preparation, involving local communities, particularly vulnerable groups, in particular in coastal cities and Small Developing Island States (SIDs). • Contribute to promoting ‘polycentric’ urban development to reduce core-periphery divides, promote more compact and socialmix neighbourhoods, reduce inequalities and avoid urban segregation. • Create or preserve open public spaces to boost inclusion and protect urban heritage and culture, while also pursuing innovative solutions to foster creativity for sustainable urban development. • Curb urban sprawl, reduce distance between home and work places to reduce commuting times and encourage access to alternative and safe modes of mobility (including walkable cities) to reduce GHG emissions. Urban and

spatial planning can lead to transformative use of renewable energy, and reduce the ecological footprint of cities and territories, greening public infrastructure and spaces, reducing air and waste pollution, and reducing risks such as floods, drought or urban heat island effects. • Improve relationships with the surrounding peri-urban and rural areas, avoid land degradation, and improve food security and farmers’ livelihoods. • Enhance the management of natural protected areas and ecosystem services, such as upstream watershed areas that the city relies on for fresh water supply, and support reforestation.

Improve access to sustainable and inclusive public services in cities and territories LRGs need to develop an integrated and systemic approach that will guarantee universal reach. This includes universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation, to quality education and health, to public affordable and sustainable mobility, to integrated waste management and to affordable and clean energy. LRGs need to: • Develop infrastructure plans alongside urban land-use plans, including long-term investment strategies to guide economic and spatial expansion, especially where there are pressures for growth. • Reduce the environmental impact of urban infrastructures and contribute to communities’ resilience. • Support inter-municipal cooperation or specific mechanisms that guarantee collaborations to ensure full coverage and adequate quality delivery in territories, be it in metropolitan areas, cities or peri-urban areas, or between neighbouring municipalities in rural areas. • Guarantee access to affordable services exploring new universal models of service co-production, taking advantage of new decentralized technologies; support smallscale businesses as basic service providers and improve the quality oversight of services; and gradually insert the informal economy into the organization of public service delivery. • Improve the management, delivery and transparency of public basic services, and facilitate innovative partnerships for coproduction and co-management.

Focus on the future of jobs and local economic development (LED) It is now urgent to steer a course away from the patterns of economic growth, consumption and production of goods and services that perpetuate deprivations, generate inequalities, deplete the global commons and threaten to cause irreversible damage to the environment. LRGs should therefore: • Promote LED that helps generate sustainable socio-economic development tailored to the particular needs and contexts of cities and territories, and ensure decent work and respect for responsible sustainability standards. • Prioritize quality local employment as a right and tailor fully-fledged policies responsive to the barriers faced by and vulnerabilities of specific groups, including women, youth, ethnic and religious minorities or people with disabilities among others; likewise find inclusive solutions to involve migrants regardless of their status; and facilitate intergenerational knowledge transfers to preserve, disseminate and evolve local know-how and crafts. • Create spaces for local innovation in order to nurture and scale-up local capacities, including those enabled by technology and naturebased industries; develop synergies with local initiatives; support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that contribute to sustainable growth and to create employment in their local environments, give impulse to productive clusters and cooperative strategies both within and between sectors and territories. • Ensure that new technologies and e-platforms do not widen the divide that is consolidating poor-quality employment, or priviledge extractive systems of production that do not support communities’ social cohesion, connectedness and wellbeing. Develop policies to protect people’s privacy, and foster traditional local small business. • Promote alternative economic models such as the transition towards a circular and green economy; support the social and collaborative economy and sustainable tourism. Support the transition towards territorialized food systems that foster good health while minimizing environmental impact; and support efforts to reduce the environmental footprint. • Recognize the critical role that the informal economy plays in the urban fabric. Because of this contribution and the growing number of

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

workers involved in informal economy activities (estimated at over two billion people worldwide, among which women are ‘over-represented’), LRGs need to take necessary steps and support and create initiatives to help entrepreneurs in the informal economy. This must support them to evolve their activities towards the social and solidary economy, and promote the creation of mechanisms to facilitate access to social protection. • Create enabling conditions, capacities and confidence to mobilize the transformative power of public procurement, while respecting the autonomy of LRGs to set their own policy priorities. This should be done by mainstreaming and implementing sustainable and decent work policies, and fair, labour-friendly and environmental clauses, and by encouraging a culture of transparent public contracts and disclosure.

At the global and national levels Foster a global-local movement to localize the SDGs. Localization should be a pillar of national sustainable strategies to implement the SDGs

• Coordinated strategies for the 2030 Agenda, the SDGs, the Paris Agreement on climate change and the New Urban Agenda are an imperative. No single agenda can be addressed in isolation. National sustainable development plans (NSDPs), NationallyDetermined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement and national urban policies (NUPs), as well as other strategic plans, need to be articulated in order to overcome sectoral fragmented strategies, improve the allocation of resources and boost implementation at all levels, from global to local and vice-versa.

Create an ‘enabling institutional environment’ for localization – empowered local and regional governments and adequate financing flows to support localization are an imperative Effective decentralization policies are intrinsic to empowering LRGs and supporting SDG localization. The principles of effective decentralization are defined in the International Guidelines on Decentralization and the Strengthening of Local Authorities, adopted by the UN-Habitat Governing Council in 2007. • LRGs need local autonomy and subsidiarity principles to be respected in order to respond to the demands of their inhabitants, to innovate and to adapt national policies and the SDGs to the local context. Urgent actions are needed to unlock LRGs’ potential to localize the SDGS and ensure access to basic services for all.

To achieve the 2030 agendas on time, the pace of change needs to accelerate and ambitions need to be bolder. National governments and international organizations should work in collaboration with LRGs and their networks to increase the outreach and strengthen partnerships of the 'whole-of-government' with the 'whole-of-society' to boost localization. National governments should:

• Access to basic social services is a universal principle acknowledged by the UN and a building block for human development. LRGs need to be empowered and accountable to ensure the delivery of quality basic services for all, defined as direct or shared responsibilities in the legal frameworks of a majority of countries, to achieve the principle to ‘leave no one behind’ — one of the core objectives of the 2030 Agenda.

• Integrate (or strengthen) robust localization strategies in their sustainable development strategies and action plans to expand the involvement of LRGs and local actors, accelerating and upscaling territorial sustainable development. Localization strategies should be mainstreamed in all plans, programmes and budgets from national to local levels.

• LRGs’ adequate fiscal powers and capacities, as acknowledged by the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (paragraph 34) need strengthened local tax systems, including the power to capture part of land and property added-value; a better allocation of national fiscal revenues through fair, regular and predictable intergovernmental transfers; and access to responsible borrowing

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

to invest in sustainable public services and infrastructures. Environmental taxes should be considered to advance energy transition and enshrine the ‘polluter pays’ principle into financing frameworks. Equalization funds are also necessary to ensure the adequate redistribution of resources across the whole territory to avoid ‘leaving any territory behind’, paying particular attention to intermediary cities and small towns and promoting more balanced and ‘polycentric’ urban systems. • To mobilize national and international sustainable investments toward cities and territories, national policies and legal frameworks should be revised. An appropriate range of debt finance options needs to be adapted and made accessible to LRGs, one that considers multiple sources of financing and innovative financial instruments. It is also necessary to adopt vertically aligned NDC investment plans and open or facilitate LRGs’ access to climate and green funds. • Facilities supporting cities in making transformative projects reach bankability and creditworthiness standards are essential and require strong backing and leadership to close financing gaps and enhance match-making opportunities, either through specific funds, or connecting cities with potential financiers. The next phase, already in motion, is to support a more diverse set of financial mechanisms that are adapted to the different capacities of cities and territories, such as the upcoming International Municipal Investment Fund, set up by the UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) and UCLG with the support of the Global Fund for Cities Development. • The promise of ‘blended finance’ can only be fulfilled with the creation of adequate regulatory frameworks and with support for LRGs in setting up partnerships with the private sector. These must be mutually beneficial and have clear contractual parameters ensuring that the needs of their citizens come first and that the poor and vulnerable groups are not ‘left behind’.

Effective involvement of all spheres of government, civil society and key stakeholders is imperative to strengthen the governance of the SDGs and the localization process

and academia in SDG implementation, are critical to achieve the ‘whole-of-government’ and ‘whole-of-society’ approaches called for by the SDGs. It is also crucial to ensure policy and institutional coherence both internally and externally. Without the active and collaborative involvement of all stakeholders, the SDGs will remain aspirational goals only. • At the national level, there is much to do in terms of effectively involving LRGs and stakeholders in the national coordination mechanisms for the implementation of the SDGs. Limited consultations and uncoordinated decisionmaking presently hinder the policy coherence necessary to achieve the SDG targets and reduce local ownership. • Integrated national planning systems are at the core of functional multilevel governance systems and need to be revamped to enhance the coordination between national governments, LRGs and local stakeholders. A renewed approach to planning that articulates national strategies with strong local initiatives in active collaboration could recalibrate development policies, facilitate burgeoning local actions and promote institutional innovation. This collaboration needs to be founded on the respect of the principle of subsidiarity. • As decision-makers, LRGs need to be involved in the definition, implementation and followup of NDCs and national strategies for the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. National urban policies (NUPs), adopted (or in the course of being adopted) by more than 92 countries, need to be integrated in national development strategies (NDSs) to take advantage of the cumulative benefits of urbanization and identify cross-sector synergies to support SDG implementation. • Horizontal cooperation at the sub-national level (e.g. intra and inter-municipal cooperation) needs adequate governance mechanisms, tools and fiscal policies to foster urban-rural partnerships and reinforce the management of growing metropolitan areas. Coordination will also strengthen interconnections and cooperation between territories for service delivery and key environmental issues that require reinforced and trans-jurisdictional (and often trans-boundary) actions, such as the management of river catchments and environmental resources.

Strong partnerships and the participation of LRGs, civil society, private sector, social partners

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Support the production and dissemination of disaggregated data for monitoring, evaluation and impact measurement of the localization of the global agendas, including the SDGs • LRG involvement in the global and national monitoring and reporting processes on SDG implementation is crucial and should not be limited to ad hoc consultations. The process of Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) needs improvement, to ensure the fullyfledged participation of LRGs that brings the voice of the territories and local actors to the process. • Fragmented reporting systems hinder ownership and the institutionalization of the SDGs across different spheres of government. Strengthening local reporting capacities and closing the data gap require particular attention and support. National and local capacities to define and collect disaggregated and localized data should be part of SDG localization strategies to ensure that planning processes at all levels are founded on realistic targets and that effective implementation can be monitored, as well as to ensure accountability and citizen follow-up. • Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs) contributing to national monitoring and to the global debate, and promoting knowledge-sharing and emulation between LRGs, are opportunities that need specific support and acknowledgment.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

A global governance system that brings together local and regional governments and civil society will boost the implementation of the global agendas • The UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) will need to be reshaped to enhance the participation of different stakeholders, as well as facilitate true innovation and learning. The HLPF should be an effective multilateral and multi-stakeholder space for dialogue, exchange and knowledge-sharing in order to reinforce multilateral collaboration and partnerships and ensure the real oversight of commitments, policy agreements and implementation. • The consolidation of the Local and Regional Governments Forum is essential as a critical space for interactions between the LRGs, UN Member States, and the UN system. Furthermore, multilevel dialogues need to embolden the local-global leadership, as proposed in the ‘Seville Commitment’. At the continental level, LRGs’ enhanced involvement in the regional forums (e.g. Regional Forums on Sustainable Development, co-organized by regional UN Commissions), in multi-stakeholder platforms (e.g. the European platform) and spaces (e.g. urban forums) will enhance policy exchange to foster SDG localization and the active involvement of LRGs in the monitoring of the SDGs and related agendas.

The audience at the Local and Regional Governments’ Forum, HLPF, 16 July 2018, New York (photo: UCLG-CGLU/Joel Sheakosk, bit.ly/31UjlHR).

06. Notes and Bibliography

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Background — Notes 1

Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, “Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future Is Now – Science for Achieving Sustainable Development” (New York, NY, 2019); United Nations Secretary General, “Long-Term Impact of Current Trends in the Economic, Social and Environmental Areas on the Realization of the Sustainable Development Goals” (New York, 2019).

United Nations Secretary-General, “LongTerm Impact of Current Trends in the Economic, Social and Environmental Areas on the Realization of the Sustainable Development Goals.”

United Nations Secretary-General, “The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet” (New York, 2014).

IPCC, “IPCC Special Report 2018: Summary for Policymakers,” 2018.

UNDESA, “World Population Prospects 2019 Data Booklet” (New York, 2019).

UNDESA, “World Urbanization Prospects. The 2018 Revision” (New York, 2018).

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre and Norwegian Refugee Council, “Global Report on Internal Displacement” (Geneva, 2018).

Metropolitan Areas — Notes 1

UNDESA, “World Urbanization Prospects The 2018 Revision.”

14 See: http://www.nccp.org/topics/ childpoverty.html.

UCLG, “Co-Creating the Urban Future. The Agenda of Metropolises, Cities and Territories,” Global Report on Local Democracy and Decentralization (GOLD IV) (Barcelona, 2016).

15 See https://citiesfordigitalrights.org.

4 5

Created in 1985, Metropolis is a network of more than 140 cities and metropolitan regions with more than one million inhabitants, advocating and fostering cooperation and knowledge-sharing among its members. The UCLG’s Peripheral Cities Committee, a platform for peripheral local authorities, is closely linked with the World Forum of Peripheral Local Authorities (FALP). The FALP network brings together nearly 230 local authorities from 32 countries, working with academics and social movements. Ana Falú, "Egalitarian Metropolitan Spaces", 2018. USAID, “Risk Assessment in Cities in Urban Governance and Community Resilience Guides,” 64. Seguridad Justicia y Paz, “Ranking (2017) de Las 50 Ciudades Más Violentas Del Mundo,” 2017. G. Lanfranchi and M. Bidart, "Gobernanza Metropolitana En América Latina y El Caribe," 2016.

UNDESA, “World Urbanization Prospects The 2018 Revision.”

UNDESA; For slum, see: UN-Habitat, “The State of African Cities 2010 Governance, Inequality and Urban Land Markets,” 2010.

10 See, for example, the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) Washington Report, available at: https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2018/06/Africa-urbanization-citiesdouble-population-2050-4%20ways-thrive. 11 Somik Vinay Lall, J. Vernon Henderson, and Anthony J. Venables, "Africa’s Cities: Opening Doors to the World" (Washington DC: World Bank, 2017). 12 See: http://www.100resilientcities.org/ updates-from-african-cities/. 13 Anna Ayuso and Josep M. Coll, “The Role of Metropolitan Areas in the Governance of Development Challenges: Towards the European Urban Agenda” (Barcelona, 2016).

16 See: https://sharingcitiesalliance.com/#about and http://www.gsef-net.org/. 17 Our methodology to elaborate this publication is based on a general analysis of the bibliography, and a focus on a representative sample of some metropolitan areas in the different regions. 18 UNDP, “Institutional and Coordination Mechanisms: Guidance Note on Facilitating Integration and Coherence for SDG Implementation” (New York, 2017). 19 For more information on the Montreal Declaration on Metropolitan Areas (2015), see: http://cmm.qc.ca/fileadmin/user_ upload/documents/20151007_habitat_ declarationMontreal-en.pdf. 20 OECD, "Governing the City" (Paris: OECD, 2015). 21 Mariona Tomàs, "Los Gobiernos Metropolitanos de Elección Directa" (Barcelona: CIDOB, 2019). 22 Lanfranchi and Bidart, "Gobernanza Metropolitana En América Latina y El Caribe."

30 Mariona Tomàs, “Gobernabilidad Metropolitana, Democracia y Eficiencia. Una Comparación Barcelona-Montreal,” Revista Española de Ciencia Política 23 (2010): 127–50. 31 Asian Development Bank, “Managing Asian Cities” (Manila, 2008). 32 For more information on the initiative “Advancing the SDGs in Practice”, by Melbourne Water, go to: https://www. wsaa.asn.au/sites/default/files/publication/ download/WSAA%20Global%20 Goals%20for%20Local%20Communities_ Advancing%20the%20SDGs%20in%20 practice_Melbourne%20Water.pdf. 33 Adetokunbo Oluwole Ilesanmi, “Urban Sustainability in the Context of Lagos Mega-City’,” Journal of Geography and Regional Planning 3, no. 10 (2010): 240–52. 34 See: https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin. de/planen/stadtentwicklungskonzept/ download/strategie/BerlinStrategie_ Broschuere_en.pdf. 35 Chaitanya Kanuri et al., “Getting Started with the SDGs in Cities: A Guide for Stakeholders,” 2016. 36 See: http://www.energy-democracy.net. 37 See: https://www.barcelonaenergia.cat/es/.

23 Chaitanya Kanuri et al., "Getting Started with the SDGs in Cities: A Guide for Stakeholders", 2016.

38 See: https://www.futurepolicy.org/foodand-water/remunicipalisation-of-waterservices-paris/.

24 OECD, "Governing the City".

39 See: https://www.municipalservicesproject. org/userfiles/Pigeon-McDonald-HoedemanKishimoto_Remunicipalizacion_Retorno_ del_Agua_a_Manos_Publicas_2013_3.pdf.

25 Mariona Tomàs, “Metropolitan Trends in the World,” Metropolis Observatory, no. Issue Paper 1 (2016); OECD, "The Metropolitan Century. Understanding Urbanisation and Its Consequences" (Paris: OECD, 2015). 26 GIZ and UN-Habitat, “Unpacking Metropolitan Governance for Sustainable Development” (Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, July 23, 2015). 27 OECD, "Governing the City". 28 Mariona Tomàs, “Metropolitan Governance in Europe: Challenges & Models” (Barcelona, n.d.). 29 E. Slack, “Financing Metropolitan Public Policies and Services,” Issue Paper 6, 2018.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

40 OECD, "Governing the City". 41 W Salet and F Savini, “The Political Governance of Urban Peripheries,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 33, no. 3 (July 23, 2015): 448–56, https://doi. org/10.1177/0263774X15594052. 42 UCLG, “Co-Creating the Urban Future,” 43–121. 43 R Bahl, “Metropolitan City Finances in Asia and the Pacific Region Issues, Problems and Reform Options” (Bangkok, 2017), 40. 44 Government of New Zealand, “Report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance” (Wellington, 2009).

45 UCLG, “Co-Creating the Urban Future,” 43–121. 46 See Badan Pusat Statistik available at: https:// yogyakarta.bps.go.id/index.php?r=site/ page&view=sosduk.tabel.3-1-1. 47 John Abbott, “Collaborative Governance and Metropolitan Planning in South East Queensland 1990-2010: From a Voluntary to a Statutory Model” (Sydney: Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, July 23, 2012). 48 For more details, see the comments by Rosemarie Edillon, Undersecretary, National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA): “Does the Philippines care about the SDGs?” (17 Oct 2017) available at: https://www.eco-business.com/news/ does-the-philippines-care-about-the-sdgs/; Oswar Mungkasa, “Partnership for New Development Agenda: Implementing SDG in Metropolitan Jakarta,” in Symposium on Indonesia-Japan Development Cooperation Building the Future Based on Trust, Jakarta, May 14, 2018. 49 It should be noted that there are a few exceptions in Africa, such as in South Africa and recently in Kenya where local governance powers and finances have been strengthened significantly. See Constitution of The Republic of South Africa (1996); Constitution of Kenya (2010). Published by The National Council for Law Reporting with the authority of the Attorney-General. 50 Falú, “Egalitarian Metropolitan Spaces.” 51 See: https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/; https://seqmayors.qld.gov.au/. 52 See also: https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ documents/20122VOLUNTARY_NATIONAL_ REPORT_060718.pdf. 53 See: https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/ goldiv_en.pdf. 54 For more details, go to: https://proyectoallas. net/2018/03/02/fortalece-cdmx-trabajo-de-laagenda-2030-de-desarrollo-sostenible/.

65 See: https://www.metropolis.org/sites/default/ files/2018-11/MetObsIP6_EN.pdf. 66 Max Bouchet et al., “Global Metro Monitor 2018” (Washington, DC, 2018). 67 For more information, go to: https://read. oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/oecd-regionsand-cities-at-a-glance-2018_reg_cit_glance2018-en#page102. 68 Details available at: t.ly/Yy8pJ. 69 Further information at: https://www.cidob. org/en/publications/publication_series/notes_ internacionals/n1_198/rethinking_global_ cities_through_international_municipalism_ and_the_right_to_the_city. 70 Refer to: bit.ly/2VH31I9. 71 See: t.ly/Yy8pJ. 72 More information on: http://www.businessstandard.com/article/economypolicy/ the-india-of-2025-49-city-clusters-todrivegrowth-114103001651_1.html.

91 See: https://www.enterprise-development. org/wp-content/uploads/managing_ informality_local_governments_practices_ towards_the_informal_economy.pdf. 92 Valérie Masson-Delmotte et al., “Global Warming of 1.5°C” (Geneva, 2018). 93 UCLG and GTF, “Towards the Localization of the SDGs 2019,” 85. 94 See: https://www.globalcovenantofmayors. org/cities/seoul/. 95 See also: https://www. globalcovenantofmayors.org/cities/tokyo/. 96 Refer to: https://www. globalcovenantofmayors.org/cities/bogota/. 97 See: https://www.globalcovenantofmayors. org/cities/hong-kong/. 98 See also: https://www. globalcovenantofmayors.org/cities/lima/. 99 Visit: https://www.globalcovenantofmayors. org/cities/london-uk/.

74 For more information, visit: http://archive. citiscope.org/citisignals/2016/chicago-usespredictive-analytics-pinpoint-rodents.

101 See: https://www.globalcovenantofmayors. org/cities/mexico-city/.

75 See: http://minict.gov.rw/fileadmin/ Documents/Strategy/SMART_AFRICA_ Sustainable-Cities_A_Blueprint_for_Africa. pdf.pdf. 76 See: https://www.cidob.org/en/content/ download/69934/2099655/version/6/ file/544_OPINION_LORENZO%20VIDAL_ CAST.pdf. 77 UCLG, “Co-Creating the Urban Future.”

56 Visit: https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/ planen/stadtentwicklungskonzept/download/ strategie/BerlinStrategie_Broschuere_en.pdf.

79 See: https://www.metropolis.org/sites/ default/files/resources/Gentrificationimpoverishment-metropolis.pdf.

57 Refer to the Asia-Pacific chapter as well as to the African chapter of the GOLD V Report.

80 See: https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/digital/ en/noticia/_616819.

58 See: bit.ly/35tGItM (older cached version).

81 See: https://citiesfordigitalrights.org. The coalition includes metropolitan cities such as Amsterdam, Athens, Barcelona, Berlin, Chicago, Helsinki, Kansas, London, Los Angeles, New York, Milan, Moscow, Munich, Sydney and Vienna, amongst others.

60 See: https://sdg.lamayor.org/sites/g/files/ wph1131/f/LA%27s_Voluntary_Local_Review_ of_SDGs_2019.pdf.

82 C40 and Climate KIC, municipality-led circular economy case studies; https://www.climatekic.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CircularCities.pdf.

61 For more information, see the North American chapter of the GOLD V Report, Box 1.

83 See: https://sharingcitiesalliance.com/#about and http://www.gsef-net.org/.

63 See: https://www.dataforcities.org/wccd/.

90 More information on: t.ly/Yy8pJ.

100 Visit also: https://www. globalcovenantofmayors.org/cities/new-yorkcity/.

55 See: https://globalgoalsjam.org/.

62 An example of the work carried out by SDSN is the yearly US Cities Sustainable Development Report, a city-level report which ranks 105 US cities on progress towards the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030. The results show that there will be significant work to do across the board if the SDGs are to be achieved by 2030, as cities on average scored only 48.9%. For more information, see: https://www. sustainabledevelopment.report/reports/2019us-cities-sustainable-development-report/.

89 More information on: https://unhabitat.org/ books/world-cities-report/#.

73 For details, go to: https://www.digitaltrends. com/cool-tech/smart-cities-singapore/.

78 See: http://www2.unwto.org/pressrelease/2018-10-08/urban-tourism-we-needbuild-cities-residents-and-visitors-findsunwto-con-0.

59 More details available at: https://publications. iadb.org/publications/english/document/ Steering-the-Metropolis-MetropolitanGovernance-for-Sustainable-UrbanDevelopment.pdf.

64 More details at: https://www. mistraurbanfutures.org/en/project/ implementing-new-urban-agenda-andsustainable-development-goals-comparativeurban.

84 See: https://www.amsterdameconomicboard. com/en. 85 See also: https://use.metropolis.org/casestudies/building-sustainable-income-andemployment-opportunities. 86 Visit: https://use.metropolis.org/case-studies/ micro-and-small-enterprise-developmentprogram. 87 For details, go to: https://use.metropolis.org/ case-studies/barcelona-activa. 88 See: https://use.metropolis.org/case-studies/ brussels-village-finance.

102 Refer to: https://www. globalcovenantofmayors.org/cities/rio-dejaneiro/. 103 See also: https://www. globalcovenantofmayors.org/cities/istanbul/. 104 See: https://www.globalcovenantofmayors. org/cities/jakarta/. 105 Visit: https://www.globalcovenantofmayors. org/cities/karachi/. 106 See also: https://www. globalcovenantofmayors.org/cities/moscow/. 107 For details, go to: https://www. globalcovenantofmayors.org/cities/saopaulo/. 108 See: https://www.globalcovenantofmayors. org/cities/lagos/. 109 See: https://www.globalcovenantofmayors. org/cities/kinshasa/. 110 Can be consulted on: https://docs. amb.cat/alfresco/api/-default-/public/ alfresco/versions/1/nodes/e281a24e46b4-472b-9eb9-622de3cc75a7/content/ Programa+mesures+contamina.pdf?att achment=false&mimeType=application/ pdf&sizeInBytes=3064259. 111 Metropolis and 100 Resilient Cities, “The Metropolitan Scale of Resilience,” 2017. 112 Lorenzo Chelleri et al., “Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Urban Resilience,” Basque Centre for Climate Change, 2012. 113 See: http://www.100resilientcities.org/ equitable-and-resilient-cities-why-were-inboston/. 114 CDMX Resilience Office, “CDMX Resilience Strategy” (Mexico City, 2016). 115 100 Resilient Cities, “Bangkok Resilience Strategy,” 2017. 116 More information available at: http:// www.100resilientcities.org/dakar-unveilsafricas-first-city-resilience-strategy-inpartnership-with-100-resilient-cities/.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

117 See: https://www.theigc.org/blog/callresilient-cities-weather-shocks-disease-dar-essalaam/.

141 World Council on City Data, "WCCD City Data for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals" (Toronto, 2017).

168 More information at: www.who.int/iris/ bitstream/10665/278979/1/WHO-FWC-ALC18.4-eng.pdf?ua=1.

118 See: https://www.smartcitiesworld.net/ special-reports/traffic-congestion-cuttingthrough-the-complexity.

142 Amnesty International, “At the Mercy of the Government: Violation of the Right to an Effective Remedy in Badia East, Lagos State, Nigeria,” 2014.

169 See: https://www.theguardian.com/ cities/2016/dec/06/singapore-silver-tsunamicity-state-elderly-workforce-ageing-cities.

119 More information on: http://www.eurocities. eu/eurocities/documents/Cities-in-actionSharing-mobility-strategy-in-Milan-WSPOA45SG9. 120 See: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/brtsystem-reduced-traveling-time-32-reducedgas-emissions-40-and-reduced-accidents-90. 121 More details available at: https://www. c40.org/case_studies/a-129-km-bus-rapidtransport-system-built-in-just-9-months-at-acost-of-2-millionkm. 122 More information on: https://www.c40.org/ case_studies/c40-good-practice-guidesistanbul-metrobus-system. 123 See: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/c40good-practice-guides-johannesburg-greenbond. 124 See also: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/ hanoi-metro-a-sustainable-public-transportfor-densely-populated-cities. 125 Visit: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/ upgrade-of-the-cycle-network-in-bogotadramatically-increases-bike-trips. 126 See: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/ chennai-s-public-bicycle-sharing-system. 127 See also: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/ electric-urban-cleaning-vehicles-to-drivedown-city-s-ghg-emissions-save-costs-andimprove-citizens-health. 128 For more information, go to: https://lamata. lagosstate.gov.ng/. 129 Details available at: https://www.c40.org/ case_studies/tokyo-tokyo-metropolitangovernment-green-building-program. 130 See: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/ cities100-vancouver-zero-emissions-fromnew-buildings. 131 See: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/ cities100-chicago-energy-saving-retrofits-foraging-housing-stock. 132 Visit: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/ hanoi-households-emissions-reductionthrough-cookstove-conversions. 133 See: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/ hanoi-to-generate-electricity-from-the-citys-biggest-landfill; https://www.c40.org/ case_studies/clean-energy-in-quezon-citya-wasteland-turned-into-a-waste-to-energymodel. 134 See also: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/ cities100-istanbul-circular-design-approachfor-processing-waste. 135 More details at: http://www.pikitup.co.za/ seperationsource/. 136 Further details may be found at: https://www. citiesclimatefinance.org/resources/. 137 OECD, “OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance” (Paris, 2018). 138 OECD. 139 UN-Habitat, "State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011 - Cities for All: Bridging the Urban Divide," 2010. 140 Josep Maria Pascual Esteve, “Gentrification and Impoverishment in the Metropolis,” Metropolis Observatory, no. Issue Paper 7 (2019).

143 For details, see: https://www.metropolis.org/ sites/default/files/metobsip5_en_1.pdf. 144 See: https://www.iied.org/special-approachslum-upgrading-special-planning-area-mukurunairobi. 145 "Cities for Adequate Housing," New York, 16th July 2018, signed by Amsterdam, Asunción, Barcelona, Berlin, Birmingham, Buenos Aires, Durban, Geneva, Jakarta, Lisbon, London, Mexico City, Medellin, Montreal, Montevideo, New York, Paris, Seoul, Strasbourg, Taipei, and Vienna amongst others. See: https://citiesforhousing.org/. 146 See: http://www.durban.gov.za/City_Services/ Community_Participation/Pages/PovertyAlleviation-Programme.aspx.

170 See also: https://www.theguardian.com/ cities/2016/apr/07/loneliest-city-in-world. 171 Further details available at: bit.ly/2IOrkys. 172 Greater Manchester Combined Authority, “Age-Friendly Strategy,” 2018. 173 See: www.who.int/iris/ bitstream/10665/278979/1/WHO-FWC-ALC18.4-eng.pdf?ua=1. 174 More information available at: https://www. metropolis.org/sites/default/files/issue_ paper_urban_culture_heritage_-_comments_. pdf. 175 "Cities for Adequate Housing," New York, 16th July 2018. See: https://citiesforhousing. org/.

147 Greg Clark and Tim Moonen, “The Role of Metropolitan Areas in the Global Agenda of Local and Regional Governments in the 21st Century” (London: The Business of Cities, Ltd., 2016). Working paper for the preparation of the 4th Global Report on Local Democracy and Decentralization (GOLD). 148 See also the municipality's web portal: bit. ly/2OPgRH2. 149 See: https://waterkant-berlin.de/. 150 See: http://usquare.brussels/en/. 151 See also: https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/ vision/green-square. 152 OECD, "Divided Cities Understanding IntraUrban Inequalities," 2018. 153 UCLG, “Co-Creating the Urban Future.” 154 Visit: https://use.metropolis.org/case-studies/ building-social-cohesion-in-the-badr-nazzaldistrict-of-amman. 155 Seguridad Justicia y Paz, “Ranking (2017) de Las 50 Ciudades Más Violentas Del Mundo.” 156 See: http://www.100resilientcities.org/ updates-from-african-cities/. 157 See: http://www.redalyc.org/ pdf/520/52001204.pdf. 158 Metropolis and Women in Cities International, “Safety and Public Space: Mapping Metropolitan Gender Policies,” 2018. 159 See: https://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/ French/m.femme.htm. 160 Falú, “Egalitarian Metropolitan Spaces.” 161 See: https://www.metropolis.org/sites/default/ files/metobsip4_en.pdf. 162 See also: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/ stories/2015/4/quito-a-city-committed-topreventing-sexual-harassment-in-publicspaces. 163 Visit: https://www.metropolis.org/sites/default/ files/metobsip4_en.pdf. 164 See: https://www.metropolis.org/news/ urban-experiences-fight-sexual-harassmentmetropolises. 165 For details, go to: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC5374256/. 166 See: https://use.metropolis.org/case-studies/ micro-gardens-in-dakar. 167 See also: http://imeplan.mx/en/ruta-2042.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

Background — Bibliography Independent Group of Scientists. “Global Sustainable Development Report.” New York, n.d. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, and Norwegian Refugee Council. “Global Report on Internal Displacement.” Geneva, 2018. https://www.unocha.org/es/themes/internaldisplacement. IPCC. “IPCC Special Report 2018: Summary for Policymakers,” 2018. UNDESA. “World Population Prospects 2019 Data Booklet.” New York, 2019. https:// population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/ WPP2019_DataBooklet.pdf.

———. “World Urbanization Prospects. The 2018 Revision.” New York, 2018. https:// population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/ WUP2018-Report.pdf. United Nations. “The Sustainable Development Goals Report.” New York, 2019. https:// unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/ The-Sustainable-Development-GoalsReport-2019.pdf.

———. “Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.” New York, 2019. ———. “The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet.” New York, 2014. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc. asp?symbol=A/69/700&Lang=E.

United Nations Secretary General. “Long-Term Impact of Current Trends in the Economic, Social and Environmental Areas on the Realization of the Sustainable Development Goals.” New York, 2019.

Metropolitan Areas — Bibliography The 158 Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) submitted to the UN High Level Political Forum by 142 countries between 2016 and 2019 have been consulted for the elaboration of the GOLD V Report. In order to avoid excessive repetition in this bibliography, you may find all such VNRs here: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/vnrs.

100 Resilient Cities. (2017). Bangkok Resilience Strategy. Abbott, J. (2012). Collaborative governance and metropolitan planning in South East Queensland 1990-2010: From a voluntary to a statutory model. Retrieved from Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government website: http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/ view/UQ:295949. Amnesty International. (2014). At the mercy of the government: Violation of the right to an effective remedy in Badia East, Lagos state, Nigeria. Asian Development Bank. (2008). Managing Asian Cities. Manila. Ayuso, A., & Coll, J. M. (2016). The Role of Metropolitan Areas in the Governance of Development Challenges: Towards the European Urban Agenda. Barcelona. Bahl, R. (2017). Metropolitan City Finances in Asia and the Pacific Region Issues, Problems and Reform Options. Bangkok. Bouchet, M., Liu, S., Parilla, J., & Kabbani, N. (2018). Global Metro Monitor 2018. Washington, DC. Chelleri, L., Kunath, A., Olazabal, M., & Minucci, G. (2012). Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Urban Resilience. Basque Centre for Climate Change. Clark, G., & Moonen, T. (2016). The Role of Metropolitan Areas in the Global Agenda of Local and Regional Governments in the 21st Century. London: The Business of Cities, Ltd.

Falú, A. (2018). Egalitarian metropolitan spaces. GIZ, & UN-Habitat. (2015). Unpacking Metropolitan Governance for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit website: http://unhabitat. org/books/unpacking-metropolitangovernance-for-sustainable-development/. Government of New Zealand. (2009). Report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Wellington. Greater Manchester Combined Authority. (2018). Age-friendly Strategy. Ilesanmi, A. O. (2010). Urban sustainability in the context of Lagos mega-city’. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 3(10), 240–252. Kanuri, C., Revi, A., Espey, J., & Kuhle, H. (2016). Getting Started with the SDGs in Cities: A Guide for Stakeholders. Lall, S. V., Henderson, J. V., & Venables, A. J. (2017). Africa’s Cities: Opening Doors to the World. Washington DC: World Bank. Lanfranchi, G., & Bidart, M. (2016). Gobernanza metropolitana en América Latina y el Caribe. Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P. R., … Waterfield, T. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. Geneva. Metropolis, & 100 Resilient Cities. (2017). The metropolitan scale of resilience.

Metropolis, & International, W. in C. (2018). Safety and public space: Mapping metropolitan gender policies. Mexico City Resilience Office. (2016). CDMX Resilience Strategy. Mexico City. OECD. (2015a). Governing the City. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/urbanrural-and-regional-development/governingthe-city_9789264226500-en. OECD. (2015b). The Metropolitan Century. Understanding urbanisation and its consequences. Retrieved from http:// www.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-andregional-development/the-metropolitancentury_9789264228733-en. OECD. (2018a). Divided Cities Understanding Intra-urban Inequalities. OECD. (2018b). OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance. Paris. Oswar Mungkasa. (n.d.). Partnership for New Development Agenda: Implementing SDG in Metropolitan Jakarta. Symposium on Indonesia-Japan Development Cooperation Building the Future Based on Trust, Jakarta, May 14, 2018. Pascual Esteve, J. M. (2019). Gentrification and impoverishment in the metropolis. Metropolis Observatory, (Issue Paper 7). Salet, W., & Savini, F. (2015). The political governance of urban peripheries. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(3), 448–456. https://doi. org/10.1177/0263774X15594052.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT

Seguridad Justicia y Paz. (2017). Ranking (2017) de las 50 ciudades más violentas del mundo. Slack, E. (2018). Financing metropolitan public policies and services. In Issue Paper 6. Tomàs, M. (n.d.). Metropolitan Governance in Europe: Challenges & Models. Barcelona. Tomàs, M. (2010). Gobernabilidad metropolitana, democracia y eficiencia. Una comparación Barcelona-Montreal. Revista Española de Ciencia Política, 23, 127–150. Tomàs, M. (2016). Metropolitan trends in the world. Metropolis Observatory, (Issue Paper 1).

UNDESA. (2018). World Urbanization Prospects. The 2018 Revision. Retrieved from https:// population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/ WUP2018-Report.pdf. UNDP. (2017). Institutional and Coordination Mechanisms: Guidance Note on Facilitating Integration and Coherence for SDG Implementation. New York. USAID. (2010). Risk Assessment in Cities in Urban Governance and Community Resilience Guides. Washington, D.C. World Council on City Data. (2017). WCCD City Data for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Toronto.

Tomàs, M. (2019). Los gobiernos metropolitanos de elección directa. Barcelona: CIDOB. UCLG. (2016). Co-Creating the Urban Future. The agenda of metropolises, cities and territories. Retrieved from http://www.gold. uclg.org/sites/default/files/GOLDIV_ENG. pdf. UCLG, & GTF. (2019). Towards the Localization of the SDGs. Retrieved from https://www.gold. uclg.org/sites/default/files/Localization2019_ EN.pdf UN-Habitat. (2010a). State of the world’s cities 2010/2011. Cities for all: bridging the urban divide. UN-Habitat. (2010b). The State of African Cities 2010 Governance, Inequality and Urban Land Markets.

GOLD V THEMATIC REPORT —— METROPOLITAN AREAS

The Localization of the Global Agendas How local action is transforming territories and communities

Our planet is advancing towards a metropolitan era characterized by major conurbations of unprecedented complexity and diversity. Cities with at least one million inhabitants are home to nearly a quarter of the world’s population (at least 1.8 billion people), and 33 of them are already megacities, with more than 10 million inhabitants each. Different types of metropolitan areas coexist in the global system of cities. They range from globalized “established” metropolises hosting the densest concentrations of firms, capital and educated labor, through extended metropolitan areas of low and middle low-income countries dominated by slums and informal economies, with a group of world cities of large fastgrowing economies in between, and to metropolises with more pronounced social and economic contrasts. While being recognized as engines of economic growth, metropolitan areas are also the source of major inequalities and environmental challenges. Considering that the 2030 Agenda must be translated into actions and policies at different scales, the coordination of local and regional governments operating at metropolitan scales–under diverse models of institutional arrangements–is key to the success of integrated approaches to sustainable development. This publication, originally featured on the fifth report of the Global Observatory on Local Democracy and Decentralization (GOLD V) illustrates how metropolitan governance affects the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). On the one hand, the text provides a review of the main challenges that persist in the accomplishment of these goals, such as institutional fragmentation and the need for coordinated multilevel. On the other hand, it brings examples of cases from around the world of metropolises which are at the forefront of the integration of the 2030 Agenda into their development strategies, leading the path to leave no one, nowhere, behind.